Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Count the Rings™ > Discussion
Count the Rings™
— Twenty-four, Twenty-five, Twenty-six.... ?

Monday, September 24, 2007

On A-Rod, Ownership and Wild Rumors

UPDATE: As several commenters pointed out, both the NY Daily News and Rob Neyer have reported it would be a violation of MLB rules for a player to be promised either a stake a club or the chance to purchase a stake in the club. Therefore, the following is pretty well useless, except for the hypothetical. - SM

Its funny that A-Rod’s contract came up over the weekend, or at least ironic. See I had been kicking around a blog entry for a while on how best to retain the services of the game’s best player and came to the same conclusion that Deadspin’s Will Leitch reports the potential, maybe future owners of the Cubs came to: Give him the keys to the kingdom.

Now, let’s first look at Rodriguez’s deal…

If he doesn’t opt out, or more to the point, if New York extends him before he opts out, the Yankees are on the hook for $50.7 million for the next three seasons (2008-10) and the balance - $21.3 million - comes from Tom Hicks’ piggy bank. For a grand total of $27 million per season.

Now, its been widely reported that superagent Scott Boras sees A-Rod as a $30+ million player, which folks can debate if they want - but let’s be honest, he’s a good in a demand, or at least his skills are a good in demand so its not unreasonable to think he might get it.

So figuring the Yankees have to add more time to the deal - so another three to four years is not out of the question. Given that he’ll be 32 on Opening Day next season, adding three years gets him to 38. So if we use $32 million to make the math easy - that’s $192 million the Yankees need to come up with. Or to make our math going forward even easier, let’s round that up to $200 million.

So $200 million over six years - less the $21.3 million from Texas is roughly $180 million, or $30 million a season, a sum easily affordable by he most valuable franchise in sports.

Can anyone pick out the most important word there? Pat yourself on the back if you said “valuable.”

Earlier this year, Forbes listed the Yankees as far and away the most valuable property in baseball - placing the team’s worth at a whopping $1.2 billion. Or in layman’s terms - twice as valuable as the Chicago Cubs.

So let’s say rumors of the Cubs deal are true (a dubious assumption) and they promise him the 10-year, $30 million equivalent, with a right to buy let’s say, 5% of the team at the end. I say pisshaw. Quick, what’s 5% of $592 million? About $30 million. Chump change in the grand scheme of things.

What if the Yankees offered that six-year, $200 million extension - or for their purposes six-year $180 or so million - but then added to it a 5% stake in the team as a bonus, rather than a backloaded accounting trick? That’s $60 million worth of team, in present day dollars, and by doing it this way, the team essentially gives A-Rod a raise every year, rather than imprisoning A-Rod in a dungeon of inflation.

How you say?

Well, Forbes reported that the Yankees franchise appreciated in value 17% from 2006 to 2007. Currently, the consumer price index is running about 2% higher this year than last, making the Yankees franchise value increase 15% in terms of real dollars. So spin that out for the next decade - making the big assumption that the Yankees franchise value and inflation remain constant for purposes of making the math simple - and what do you get? Using a compound interest calculator, you get about $140 million.

So what do you think, would Boras and A-Rod sign on the line that is dotted for about $340 million over six years?

Cross-posted at RLYW.net

Sean McNally Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:43 AM | 12 comment(s)
  Related News: BusinessNY YankeesRumors

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Sean McNally Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:46 AM (#2539920)
I'm totally lame - someday I'll have time to actually blog and stuff.
   2. aleskel Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:52 AM (#2539931)
uh ... isn't it against MLB rules for players or managers to own stock in their team or receive promised stocks for when they leave or retire?
   3. Sean McNally Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:53 AM (#2539932)
uh ... isn't it against MLB rules for players or managers to own stock in their team or receive promised stocks for when they leave or retire?


Is it? I don't think so... but I could be wrong.
   4. Sometimes it Rains (sj) Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:55 AM (#2539940)
Are you insane, why would anyone GIVE UP 5% of the ####### Yankees.

they wuould rather extend him for 3/180 than do that.
   5. RB in NYC (Now with an Apartment!) Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:57 AM (#2539948)
The NY Daily News reported that it is apparently aganist the rules for any players to own a team, or be promised a stake as part of a contract. I suppose you could do this kind of thing under the table, but that seems like a dangerous game for anyone to play.
   6. aleskel Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM (#2539952)
from Neyer's blog this morning on the Cubs-ownership shenanigans:

it seems that MLB's rules prohibit not only player ownership, but also a negotiation for future ownership.
   7. Sean McNally Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM (#2539953)
Are you insane, why would anyone GIVE UP 5% of the ####### Yankees.


There's a couple reasons I think this works...

A) If that's what other teams are offering, then that sort of sets the market.
B) I think the Steinbrenner's own a supermajority of the team (in excess of 75% or 80% of the team) so optioning part of that to A-Rod (or other players) does little to harm their interest, since those players would likely become Steinbrenner loyalists in a business sense, keeping the voting bloc together.
C) I'm pretty sure that such an arrangement would be exempt from luxury tax payments - therefore, you get to throw hundreds of millions at A-Rod, without having to send tens of millions to David Glass.
   8. Textbook Editor Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:59 AM (#2539954)
Should you take into account the luxury tax hit the Yankees wouldtake on such a deal? Wouldn't the tax add 30% to each year of the contract (assuming the Yankees are over the luxury tax threshhold in each year of the contract, not an unreasonable assumption). That makes the $200 million more like $260 million, before you even start in with the ownership stake.

You could make a reasonable argument (as I'm sure Boras will) that, when all is said and done, A-Rod may be considered the best player ever, be the HR king, etc. in which case you could also argue having "lifetime rights," essentially, to that player, his likeness, having a NYY cap on his Cooperstown hardware, etc. has some value above and beyond just his production on the field. Is it worth a $10 million per year premium over what everyone else is getting + an ownership stake? I have no idea, but I would agree that the one player I would consider such a deal for--if I ran the Yankees--would be A-Rod.

All that said, I'm starting to suspect that an extension deal with the Yankees is not going to happen. And the Cubs seems as likely a place as any for him to end up.
   9. Sean McNally Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:59 AM (#2539955)
Then I stand corrected... and this whole thing is moot. Awesome.
   10. aleskel Posted: September 24, 2007 at 11:01 AM (#2539961)
sorry Sean, didn't mean to burst your bubble
   11. Sometimes it Rains (sj) Posted: September 24, 2007 at 11:06 AM (#2539972)
All that said, I'm starting to suspect that an extension deal with the Yankees is not going to happen. And the Cubs seems as likely a place as any for him to end up.

I think there is about a 70% chance he stays in the Bronx.
   12. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: September 24, 2007 at 11:14 AM (#2539982)
from Neyer's blog this morning on the Cubs-ownership shenanigans:

it seems that MLB's rules prohibit not only player ownership, but also a negotiation for future ownership.


I seem to recall Boras openly discussing Carlos Beltran's desire to get a piece of team ownership when he was on the FA market.
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Well, well, what do you know?
(4 - 10:57am, Oct 08)

Jinx!
(85 - 12:29am, Oct 04)

It's been a while ...
(1 - 8:17am, May 31)

The Dog Ate My Blog
(37 - 10:26am, Mar 29)

Happy Yankee Day!
(17 - 5:34pm, Jan 29)

Tough spot
(156 - 2:40pm, Dec 07)

Taking Stock
(33 - 4:43pm, Oct 11)

Here kitty, kitty . . .
(51 - 1:15am, Oct 10)

In the clinch
(11 - 7:23pm, Sep 27)

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

Ticket Nest sells Braves, Cubs, Padres, Indians, Marlins, Nuts, Pirates, Rangers, Patriots, Royals, Stars, Tides, Tigers, Twins, Phillies, Wings, Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers tickets, and Dragons tickets.

Live the Experience when you buy Yankees Tickets, Red Sox Tickets, Rockies Tickets, Cleveland Indian Tickets, Padres Tickets, all MLB Tickets, NFL Tickets, Wicked Tickets at Tickets3D.com

Tickets Made Simple when you buy Yankees Tickets, Red Sox Tickets, Rockies Tickets, Cleveland Indian Tickets, Mariners Tickets, MLB Tickets, Seahawks Tickets, and all at Seattletixx.com

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 0.8592 seconds
62 querie(s) executed