Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#2152119)
someone like a Dolan, Ratner, Trump??, might be willing to do it

The Dolans wanted the Red Sox, remember? Made the highest offer, in fact.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that the Yankees won all of those titles while having no A.L. competition in the city?

I don't recall writing anything that even vaguely would suggest this, but if you want to just trade irrelevancies, I could point out just how awesomely dominant the Knicks and Rangers were in their respective leagues until the Nets, Islanders and Devils came along.
   102. Sean Forman Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#2152129)
Gardening (no answer to this, again??) Do you really think that if we plopped the Yankees down in Kansas City, they would have a $200m payroll?

I don't think people realize just how well MLB is doing financially.

Here is some info from the April 3, 2006, Sports Business Journal.

Here is a quote from Lewis Wolff after hearing the financial report at his first owners meeting.
"It was sort of a surprise, to be honest. We went from happy to triple-happy."

MLB execs say that 25 clubs will show paper profits in 2006.

MLBAM is projected to earn $300m this year. Total industry revenue is at $5.1b ($170m/team) for 2006, up 50% from 2001.

Total player compensation has been essentially flat in the last five years growing at the rate of inflation.

SBJ is projecting EBITDA at $450m in 2006, up from -$232m in 2001.

The 2007-2013 national (only) TV deals are about $5.1B or $25m/team/year. Satellite radio and non-MLBAM internet is going to add about $5m/team/year to that.

So based on 2006 numbers each team can expect $25m + $5m + $10m (MLBam) + $10m (MLB enterprises) = $50m in revenue before selling a ticket, beer, local radio ad, local tv ad, or parking spot. And those last two numbers are probably going to only get bigger.
   103. Sean Forman Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#2152135)
The Dolans wanted the Red Sox, remember? Made the highest offer, in fact.

I know, but it isn't like there is an active market in NY mlb franchises. Don't you think they would jump in an NY franchise should one ever come available. I suspect that if the Yankees were put on an open market they would easily clear $1b. Perhaps the way mlb is going $1.4b.
   104. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2152152)
So based on 2006 numbers each team can expect $25m + $5m + $10m (MLBam) + $10m (MLB enterprises) = $50m in revenue before selling a ticket, beer, local radio ad, local tv ad, or parking spot.

And with local revenues that are easily well in excess of $200m, it's pretty hard to understand why the Red Sox can't *afford* a bigger payroll. Of course, it's easy to think of lots of perfectly good reasons why they would choose not to spend more.

Don't you think they would jump in an NY franchise should one ever come available.

I really don't know. Honestly. There are reasons they might, and there are reasons they might not. They sort of strike me as the types who talk big, but don't really have all that much fight in them. That's why I'm not sure they *really* want a chance to take on the Yankees head-to-head.
   105. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#2152156)
I know, but it isn't like there is an active market in NY mlb franchises. Don't you think they would jump in an NY franchise should one ever come available. I suspect that if the Yankees were put on an open market they would easily clear $1b. Perhaps the way mlb is going $1.4b.


(1) That doesn't address Elenchi's point about having your own market rather than having to compete with George, who is already pretty well capitilized.

(2) That depends on what you mean by "the Yankees". If you mean only the franchise, marks, and player contracts, I seriously doubt it would go for that high. If it turned into an M&A with established media companies, real estate, etc. then it greatly depends on what is in that package.

(3) Where is this "32 teams number" coming from. Yes, if you expand that large then a third NY team is one of the more viable locations. But if your goal is "Hooray for competition" why not stop there. Why not let anybody who can form a team have entry into MLB. Again, it sounds like you want to push it open just enough so the Yankee's have a fiscal hit.
   106. OlePerfesser Posted: August 22, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#2152166)
There's no question Sean is right about the attractiveness of even a fraction of the NY market. With cable TV increasingly important as a way of delivering revenue to teams, it's worth noting the top 10 Nielsen markets(as of '05):

RANK / Designated Market Area (DMA) / TV Homes / % of US
1 New York 7,375,530 6.692
2 Los Angeles 5,536,430 5.023
3 Chicago 3,430,790 3.113
4 Philadelphia 2,925,560 2.654
5 Boston (Manchester) 2,375,310 2.155
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,355,740 2.137
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,336,140 2.120
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,252,550 2.044
9 Atlanta 2,097,220 1.903
10 Houston 1,938,670 1.759

IOW, all you'd have to do is capture about one quarter of the NY market to have a potential audience as big as you'd have in Houston, the 10th-largest TV market in the country.

More perspective: Milwaukee (#33) & Cinci (#34) both have about 880k TV households, roughly one-eighth as many as are in NY.

As to the antitrust exemption, if Al Davis was running a baseball team he'd say "I got your stinkin' antitrust exemption right here," he'd move to North Jersey or Manhattan or wherever he got offered a stadium subsidy, and he'd hire a good lobbying and legal team, and he'd eat MLB's lunch either in Congress or in court.

And within a couple of years, after a splashy FA spending binge, "NY Raiders" gear would outsell everything else in town. ;-)
   107. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2152185)
That doesn't address Elenchi's point about having your own market rather than having to compete with George, who is already pretty well capitilized

Actually, I think Steinbrenner is pretty under-capitalized. My understanding is that a very large percentage of his net worth is tied up in the Yankees. Mind you, because the Yankees are worth so much, Stein's net worth is staggering; but if I understand his circumstances correctly he doesn't have the werewithal to withstand $50 million losses year after year.
   108. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:11 PM (#2152188)
By the way, it seems to me that anyone threatening to move into New York would be using it as a lever to get Steinbrenner to sell the Yankees to them. George is getting older and might be persuaded to let go of the team, especially if he was threatened - because his ability to withstand losses without tucking into the value of the team is relatively low. The real prize isn't so much the New York market, but the Yankees themselves.
   109. Chris Dial Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:19 PM (#2152197)
Where is this "32 teams number" coming from.

Uh, it balances the leagues?

Yes, if you expand that large then a third NY team is one of the more viable locations. But if your goal is "Hooray for competition" why not stop there. Why not let anybody who can form a team have entry into MLB. Again, it sounds like you want to push it open just enough so the Yankee's have a fiscal hit.

Not to me. Well, not *just* that. I think Boston would be the other market, assuming Vegas was off-limits. Possibly San Jose.
   110. Sean Forman Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#2152209)
Gardening (no answer to this, again??) Do you really think that if we plopped the Yankees down in Kansas City, they would have a $200m payroll?

Of course, Al Davis wouldn't get a franchise to begin with.

First off, expansion to 32 is a natural number to expand to and I would be surprised if it doesn't happen in the next ten years. It makes scheduling much easier and I think the expansion fees are such an easy payoff that teams will go for it.

Here is a 2002 article, valuing YES at $850m and the Yankees at $700m.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0415/092_print.html

Perhaps, I'm on the low side.

Backlasher, if it will make you happy put the team in Hartford and stick it to both teams. I know you want to turn this into a whiny Red Sox thing, but the franchise relocation drum is one I've been beating for quite awhile now.

Here is another darkhorse owner for you, Mark Cuban.
   111. . . . . . . Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2152216)
If they would call up Ellsbury and Zink, I think they could help turn this thing around.

Zink? The same guy who's got a 1.51 WHIP and 41K's in 81.2 IP in Pawtucket? That'll work great against the Yankees or White Sox. Yep, that's definately the solution.
   112. . . . . . . Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#2152218)
And Ellsbury is hitting .333/.385/.455 at Double-A. I don't know the MLE for that off-hand, but here's my wild guess: Shitty.
   113. Chris Dial Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2152223)
If you're looking for very rich people who are shrewder than Steinbrenner, just find yourself a list of very rich people.

I laughed and laughed.

I know you want to turn this into a whiny Red Sox thing, but the franchise relocation drum is one I've been beating for quite awhile now.

Before or after you became a Red Sox fan who was getting it handed to them by the Yankees? Did your drum beating begin in 1918?
   114. Chris Dial Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2152226)
That's just a joke BTW, I don't think you are being a whiny Red Sox fan (which is redundant).
   115. Sean Forman Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2152227)
2004!! Baby!! 2004!! Greatest Comeback Ever!
   116. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#2152229)
expansion to 32 is a natural number to expand to and I would be surprised if it doesn't happen in the next ten years

I happen to agree with this. The question then becomes... how much? $250 million apiece? $300 million?

More?

Given that three meth-heads and a capuchin monkey could make $20 million a year running a team under baseball's current economics in any but the very worst markets, I have to think that the price for expansion teams is going to be north of $300 million. (Forbes figured that the Devil Rays, baseball's lowest-valued team, were worth $209 million in the 2006 valuation, but the Devil Rays made operating income of $20.3 million, an insane return on a $209 million value when that value includes a movable franchise!)

Given that the Nationals sold for $450 million, I'd think that the starting bids for MLB expansion would be $350 million or more.

The most recent Forbes valuation put the Yankees at $1.026 billion. I think that may be a little excessive, since revenue is only $277 million, but you can certainly see the potential. I'm surprised that Yankee revenues are that low... Real Madrid and Manchester United both make more in much smaller home markets.
   117. Chris Dial Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#2152231)
Greatest Comeback Ever!

cough1986cough
   118. rr Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2152233)
2004!! Baby!! 2004!! Greatest Comeback Ever!

Exactly. It was just about the most awesome moment any sports franchise has ever had and was well-earned and well-deserved.

So shut the #### up about the Yankees' payroll advantage already. ;-)
   119. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2152238)
   120. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2152241)
cough1986cough

My, that's a nasty cough. Take some of this cough syrup; it's got cocaine in it! Numbs the throat real good.
   121. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2152247)
Does the NYC metro market include all of Jersey? Or is Western Jersey part of Philly?

I would welcome a third club to NY, they would be unpopular, and they would not be able to draw, but they might be able to win a little.

Look at the NJ Devils? Who do they draw? Is anyone from the city going to go out on the train or fight rush hour traffic to get out there? No way.

Anyoen from jersey going to leave work early to take the train home, get all the way home, pick up the kids then take them back to the Meadowlands?

If not the Meadowlands, Trenton? Really? Trenton? Newark?

They would flop gloriously. Unless they were in Brooklyn.
   122. Sean Forman Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2152248)
JLAC,

Aren't you curious what YES's revenues would look like? And does the Yankees valuation include the share of YES controlled by Steinbrenner?
   123. . . . . . . Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#2152252)
No. The guy who with the 8-2 record and the 3.82 ERA.

Oh wait. You're a Voros McCracken disciple. That explains it.


Even a knuckleballer can't get by on those peripherals, dimwit.
   124. Chris Dial Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:53 PM (#2152255)
Even a knuckleballer can't get by on those peripherals, dimwit.

Steve Trachsel disagrees.
   125. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:53 PM (#2152256)
IIRC, Offense is historically down all over the minors.

One might say it is 80%* of what it was in previous years.

*That is for Dial.
   126. cseadog Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2152258)
Ellsbury isn't close to being ready. a raw version of last year's Melky Cabrera
   127. Toby Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2152261)
Sean, I am completely on board with the plan to expand to 32 teams and to allow free market forces to dictate where teams can and can't move.

Unfortunately, I don't see much chance that MLB would ever do it. From the perspective of the league (and the union, I might add), adding a team to NY doesn't grow the overall number of MLB fans, it merely splits the existing MLB fans in greater New York three ways instead of two. Adding a team in a new market, however, does grow the overall number of MLB fans.
   128. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2152262)
Aren't you curious what YES's revenues would look like?

Of course. But the Yankees valuation doesn't include the 38% stake they/Stein own in YES, as far as I can tell, which is what makes it unrealistic. If you put YES at a low value, then the combined enterprise looks more realistic. But Forbes in their breakout say that YES has $200M of revenue and is worth $1 billion. I have a hard time believing that with their cost of doing business, the combined Yankees-YES enterprise is worth $2 billion on yearly revenue that doesn't even crack $500 million (and probably makes a loss, all things considered)

I guess acquiring the Yankees doesn't make sense for anyone (not since at least 1960) if it's not part of a combined assault on the New York television-viewing market. So you have to aggregate both properties...
   129. Rally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2152268)
Minor League splits has Ellsbury's MLE.

Ellsbury

Looks kinda like Coco Crisp. Maybe he's got a better glove.
   130. Sean McNally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#2152271)
He is already a quality defender and better baserunner than Cabrera.


That's high praise. Melky looked pretty sweet legging out that double and subsequently taking third on that barely wild pitch.

I can't speak to Ellsbury's skills, but the Sox would be lucky if he just matched Cabrera's '06 output. The Melkster's been that good.
   131. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2152272)
Call him up, where is he going to play?
   132. . . . . . . Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2152274)
Steve Trachsel disagrees.

Steve Trachsel has Beltran in centerfield.

Even if you think Zink's 3.82 ERA is legit, what does that translate to in the AL East? a 5.00 ERA? Zink's having trouble getting AAA guys out, how the heck is he going to win in the majors? His MLE WHIP is 2.00!
   133. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2152276)
MLB execs say that 25 clubs will show paper profits in 2006

Those that don't will likely show value growth that outstrips losses, as well, even the Yankees, and even after inflation. Nobody gets poorer in MLB these days unless they do something really, amazingly weird.

So maybe my estimate earlier was off. Do I hear $450 million a pop? That's $30 million apiece for the existing 30.
   134. Sean McNally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2152277)
According to McNally, Steinbrenner is a marketing genius.


Wha? Why am I getting thrown under the bus now?

I'm curious how much of their revenues get swallowed by the higher cost of doing business in New York, the aborted YankeeNets deal, etc.
   135. Rally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2152278)
He has a much better glove, Rally. That is the main reason he should be called up.

That's what people say. I prefer to take a wait and see approach. Most below average defenders in the majors had good reps when they make their debut. I'll have to dig out my old BA prospect handbook, see what they said about Coco when he came up.
   136. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2152280)
Are you giving up on Crisp already? Are you committed to trading Crisp in the offseason?

I would think sitting Crisp now is going to make him unhappy. If Ellsbury doesn't work out yet, you come in to ST with a unhappy CF and a too young CF.

I don't see what is gained by calling him up now
   137. cseadog Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2152281)
Kevin, I've seen Ellsbury and he's not ready. Ellsbury is going to be good, but he's way too inconsistent at this stage. Hanley was also inconsistent, but for a different reason. He just didn't seem to concentrate. Big question on Hanley (still unanswered) is whether he can stand up to the grind.
   138. Rally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#2152285)
I look forward to seeing Pedroia for his debut. Just hope the Angels can keep people off base in front of his inevitable homers, and Vlad & co. can continue to bash this pitching staff.
   139. . . . . . . Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2152293)
Beltran is an average defender. So what is your point?

Has one of your viruses assaulted your brain? Beltran is many things. He is a plus centerfielder, perhaps not at the level of a Wells or a Hunter, but damned fine. Combined with Millege and Chavez and Nady or whoever else the Mets have been throwing out there for most of this year, thats a very good defensive outfield. You have Manny, Coco, and Pena in your OF. Putting a low-K, high-FB knuckler in front of that isn't just bad team constuction, its batshit crazy. What, are you trying to get Zink to fail? Zink wouldn't sniff the better side of a 5.00ERA in the bigs right now.

I don't know about that but he doesn't seem to be having any trouble winning and preventing the other team from scoring in AAA.

40 runs in 81.2 IP at AAA is not good run prevention by MLB standards. If you're hanging the hopes of the Red Sock franchise on an 8-2 AAA W-L record, well, you're an idiot.
   140. Sean McNally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:31 PM (#2152305)
Do I need a reason? :)


I don't mind you throwing me under the bus if I did something - but c'mon, just tossing my name out there is gratuitious.

And ugh, I was all set to call kevin out for hypocrisy Re: Crisp... I thought I had found some good supportive quotes, then I see this gem from him:

I'm rather disappointed by this trade too. It could turn out OK but I'm rather pessimistic. link

There's also some interesting roster analysis in that thread... ahhh The Boston Red Sox 2006 January World Series Champions.
   141. rr Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:32 PM (#2152307)
Given Zink's unusual stuff, I suspect that he could and will have a great short run to start to his MLB career while teams adjust to him/get information about his knuckler. In spite of the mediocre peripherals, I could see him going like 5-0/3.00 off the bat, then going through an adjustment period himself, of course.
   142. Rally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#2152318)
Those are pretty awesome charts. I think he only does it after the season is over - it takes a lot of time to run them.
   143. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:49 PM (#2152325)
If you're looking for very rich people who are shrewder than Steinbrenner, just find yourself a list of very rich people.

But we're not looking for rich people who are shrewder than Steinbrenner. We're looking for potential MLB franchise owners who would choose the opportunity to go toe to toe with the Yankee brand over a guaranteed profit in a smaller market that they'd have protected exclusivity in. I think that's a much shorter list.
   144. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#2152327)
That thread is awesome....

Gagne looks pretty smart now.

Who is better this year, Clement or Mussina? Wang or Wakfield?
   145. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#2152329)
kevin, I was just going to post that quote. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, and I was an anti Damon as the next person. (I have finally warmed to the Damon signing this month)
   146. Kyle S Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:02 PM (#2152344)
that thread IS awesome. eric van comes off looking like a total #########. i don't know him at all - is that common?

go moose go! i hear he's a real a%%h**e but it's worth rooting for him if only for additional crow some of those sox fanboys will have to eat.
   147. Kyle S Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2152360)
fair enough, kevin. i guess that wasn't his finest hour.

we all deserve to eat a little crow every once and a while... it's good for us. i've re-read enough hilarious things i've said in the past to know that. i still remember insulting my friend yash for having the temerity to spend $16 (out of $260) on alfonso soriano in our auction league this march. "do you even UNDERSTAND park factors?" i said. oh well, at least he's not the most valuable player in our league or anything... wait.

---

anyone remember the SoSH threads where people superimposed Coco's hit chart onto Fenway and determined he would have hit like 35 homers in 2005? good times.
   148. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2152368)
Of course. But the Yankees valuation doesn't include the 38% stake they/Stein own in YES, as far as I can tell, which is what makes it unrealistic.

Why do you presume that it does not include the stake. I do not think the Yankees revenues include YES revenues, but only include distributions made to YES based on its status as owner, or the revenue it receives based on its contracts with YES.

But the ownership of YES is an asset of the NY Yankees baseball team, which would seem to be part of its valuation.

If not, then its real tough to square the evaluations of different ball teams. That "Market" piece is 500+ Million for the Yanks. It is about 263 Million for the Mutts. (and 266 Million for the Bosox as an example).

So unless you think that Queens v. Bronx is making that big a difference (and if it did then why wouldn't Bronx v. Hoboken etc. etc.) then its got to include something.

And that something isn't the AL, because the Cubs market is 80 Million more valuable than the White Sox.

So, if you sell the franchise, the marks, and the existing contracts, but not the YES Share, or Steinbrenners soon to be acquired stadium, it looks like the Yanks are worth much less than 1 Billion.
   149. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#2152375)
And also, if NY is suppose to be the magic bullet for being able to develop market because of eyeballs, are those eyeballs only interested in baseball.

Because according to Forbes valuations, the Yanks are worth about the same as the NE Patriots and the Dallas Cowboys. They are worth less than the Washington Redskins.

Moreover local revenues are already shared at about 34%, and that will rise higher after Steinbrenner builds his stadium tax shelter I imagine.
   150. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2152385)
Backlasher, if it will make you happy put the team in Hartford and stick it to both teams. I know you want to turn this into a whiny Red Sox thing, but the franchise relocation drum is one I've been beating for quite awhile now.


If a team wants to go to Hartford, I'm not sure what is holding it back. The Expos did move right into Washington. There was a little murmuring, but not much else.

But if you are beating a drum, I'm not sure what you are beating. Do you want to force a franchise to go to NY? Do you think someone is being denied a real opportunity to move to NY because they want to move?

I haven't really heard that at all. I think many people wanted to mine DC/N.Va. I imagine some want to mine Las Vegas, but that has its on set of problems. That is where the A's should move.
   151. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2152387)
Why do you presume that it does not include the stake.

Because Forbes says it doesn't in their breakout, that's all.
   152. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#2152392)
Skins also own their brand new stadium.
   153. Guapo Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2152393)
   154. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2152396)
Because Forbes says it doesn't in their breakout, that's all.


Where does it say that?
   155. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#2152400)
The Redskins have an unreal following around DC, BL.

I don't doubt that one iota. But the value of the market does not mean that you can drop someone in there and it automatically has that capital value.
   156. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2152401)
Moreover local revenues are already shared at about 34%, and that will rise higher after Steinbrenner builds his stadium tax shelter I imagine.

Actually, it will shrink unless the next CBA changes the rules (again). Currently, whatever teams pay toward new stadium construction is deductible from revenue-sharing. So, the other 29 franchises will be subsidizing Steinbrenner's monument to himself.
   157. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#2152404)
But Forbes in their breakout say that YES has $200M of revenue and is worth $1 billion. I have a hard time believing that with their cost of doing business, the combined Yankees-YES enterprise is worth $2 billion

Reading the article, it would suggest that both Yankees + Yes would be equal to 1.6 Billion.

"Losses being offset" deals with revenue, not capital value. The 38% is an asset that has capital value of what looks like about 380 Million Dollars.

Again, why would they exclude that and not expressly say it, when they expressly say the evalution does not include the value for the rights in future stadium ownership.

I see nowhere where they talk about the asset being excluded. I do see where they deal with Yankee's revenue being offset by Yes Revenue for the ownership group.

But if I own 5 shares of HP, it has capital value. The amount of money it makes will have very little to do with my earned income in a year (except what they give me as distributions, which is what I explained in my first post).
   158. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#2152408)
Actually, it will shrink unless the next CBA changes the rules (again). Currently, whatever teams pay toward new stadium construction is deductible from revenue-sharing. So, the other 29 franchises will be subsidizing Steinbrenner's monument to himself.


No, I quite imagine the owners will increase the percentage amount of revenue sharing exactly because of that loophole, which was the point I was trying to make.
   159. Sean McNally Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2152412)
Kids under 10 haven't formed their loyalties yet, for the most part. You get to them before your competitors, you control the future.


Are we sure kevin isn't a tobacco company executive?
   160. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2152414)
we all deserve to eat a little crow every once and a while... it's good for us.

After the Yankees signed Damon, I said, "instead of signing Damon, I would rather Cashman came to my house and punch me right in the nuts."

I am gladly eating crow right now.
   161. The Original SJ Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2152417)
I think I made a bet with someone witht he paying being a nutpunch.

McNally, get on that google machine and find it.
   162. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#2152420)
Where does it say that?

Am I misreading this which provides that the team's YES stake and accompanying revenues isn't included? Or is it just the revenue (since 38% isn't enough to consolidate) that isn't included. Thinking about it, I suppose it might be the latter, which would put the Yankees' franchise value without YES at $640 million, which would in fact cohere better with $277M in revenue.
   163. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#2152421)
I quite imagine the owners will increase the percentage amount of revenue sharing exactly because of that loophole.

OK, I get it now. I thought you were simply referring to more revenue meaning more revenue that had to be shared.
   164. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2152422)
Sure. But at least, in a large market, you have a rich ore to leach.

I don't doubt that at all, kevin. But valuation is still more about putting asses in seats then Nielsen definitions.

I have no problem with salary caps in any sport. And at some point, it doesn't matter why there is disparity, once that disparity is in place. It stiffles competition, and the only ones that want to keep it are those that benefit from the system.

But the reverse is not true. I see plenty of people talk about these things and they are specifically looking for ways to deal with the Yankees.

Forman states its about "Franchise relocation"; if that is true than I'm wondering what is the issue. A specific antitrust exemption on that matter was not codified; it is not considered part of the jurisprudence (although it could be); and as far as I know, its not ripe for discussion. Nobody has tried to move and gotten the smackdown.
   165. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: August 22, 2006 at 10:03 PM (#2152426)
I see nowhere where they talk about the asset being excluded. I do see where they deal with Yankee's revenue being offset by Yes Revenue for the ownership group.

Sho', sho', sho'. I was jumping to conclusions (I think I see that now... I'll ask Maury Brown what his understanding is, since he follows these things more closely than I do).

If the combined Yankees-YES valuation is $1.65 billion (approx) on $477M of annual revenue, that's more reasonable.
   166. rr Posted: August 22, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#2152440)
Reading the article, it would suggest that both Yankees + Yes would be equal to 1.6 Billion.

Actually, it's $1,599,995,000, since Steinbrenner just graciously donated 5 grand to the Staten Island Little League World Series team. He was going to give them 10 grand, but the coach said he would not issue an IBB to the team's best hitter to get to a kid with cancer with the game on the line, and George said "wrong answer, pal."
   167. dlf Posted: August 22, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#2152466)
Forman states its about "Franchise relocation"; if that is true than I'm wondering what is the issue. A specific antitrust exemption on that matter was not codified; it is not considered part of the jurisprudence (although it could be); and as far as I know, its not ripe for discussion. Nobody has tried to move and gotten the smackdown.


What was the final resolution of the lawsuit brought by a member of Mike Piazza's family when he was shot down while trying to buy the Giants and move them to Tampa? I think it settled out of court. But that had the prerequisites to open up the Forman possibility.
   168. Backlasher Posted: August 22, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2152470)
What was the final resolution of the lawsuit brought by a member of Mike Piazza's family when he was shot down while trying to buy the Giants and move them to Tampa? I think it settled out of court. But that had the prerequisites to open up the Forman possibility.

It was settled as far as I know. The jurisprudential aspect is discussed on page 1.
   169. dlf Posted: August 22, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#2152505)
It was settled as far as I know. The jurisprudential aspect is discussed on page 1.


Two pages can be too long for a guy trying to run out of the office at the end of the day ...

I looked it up; the decision you reference in the Piazza case was on a preliminary matter. On the eve of trial, it settled. Vince Piazza took $6m to walk away. That is about 1/3 of the difference between his agreed upon price to buy the Giants ($115m) and the amount that MLB approved from (I think) Magowan ($100m).

If an owner wanted to move to NY/NJ, I don't think the league could stop him. I wonder what the final resolution would have been in the Twins case where they were preliminarily enjoined from breaking their lease in Minnesota. With parks being built left and right by cities, I think the hammer - such as it is - has moved from the leagues to the lessees.
   170. OlePerfesser Posted: August 23, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#2153811)
Another day, another loss.

It appears the pessimists were right about this team's likelihood of competing seriously this season. Though we're still 4 GB in the WC race, and that's within Earl Weaver's limit for deciding whether you have a snowball's chance in hell (i.e., it's only realistic to think you can make up 1 GB per week, on average), this team isn't playing like it's capable of making up any ground on anyone. Mr. Sunshine has left the building.

Was this team constructed in a flawed way?

We don't need to beat a dead horse about Tavarez and Seanez any more; ditto speculating about whether Beckett, Crisp, and Pena are really building blocks.

What bugs me most is Theo's performance on Deadline Weekend. We now know that innings-eaters like Livan Hernandez and Jamie Moyer were likely in play at the time, as were LOOGYs like Rheal Cormier. The team had some desperate needs, and some feasible solutions were out there, and Theo wasted his weekend trying to do something splashy. The heat he's taking is well deserved.
   171. rr Posted: August 23, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#2153818)
i.e., it's only realistic to think you can make up 1 GB per week, on average)

I don't have evidence to support this, but it seems to me that when ground is made up, it is because of streaks. I remember the Red/Dodger races when I was a little kid, and guys would say "We need to make up a game a week" but it seems like when races tighten, it is because Team A loses 8 out of 10 while Team B wins 7 out of 9. Has any research been done on this?

The heat he's taking is well deserved.

I tend to agree. I think GMs should be able to close deals for relief help without giving up big prospects (or Austin Kearns). I think Epstein coule have brought in a little help for the Yankee series without compromising his long-term plans.
   172. OlePerfesser Posted: August 23, 2006 at 06:38 PM (#2154031)
I think you're right about streaks, robin, but rooting for us to go on a long winning streak while everybody else staggers is like buying lottery tickets as your retirement fund.

BTW, on TradeSports people are betting the Sox have about a 10-12% chance of winning the WC race. If Mr. Sunshine wasn't vacationing, he might put a dime on that in the hope of getting a dollar in October. But I'm pretty sure it'd be wasting a perfectly good dime. Sigh.
   173. Darren Posted: August 25, 2006 at 01:56 AM (#2155940)
Why did Sean quote the same text about 22 times in this thread?
   174. Joel W Posted: August 25, 2006 at 06:22 AM (#2156245)
Does Beckett only pitch well when he has a problem on his middle finger?
   175. Dave Cyprian Posted: August 27, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2158528)
eulogy: i'm sorry to say i completely stopped watching and following the team during the massacre. part of that is my new job which occupies mucho timo but also i'm running out of hope. i've watched a lot of games, and i can tell you confidently that youkilis, lowell and papelbon have all lost their otherwordly abilities from earlier this season. the pitching is downright embarrassing. thankfully big papi is making a run at several home run records, like the red sox and the american league, that is pretty exciting, but did you hear how he was actually sent to the hospital for an irregular heart beat caused by stress? He's actually killing himself trying to make up for a talented team with a sorry ERA.

again, i think we will be totally fine next year. the emergence of lester, papelbon and youkilis, combined with likely bounce backs for beckett and crisp will be good, plus there is absolutely no doubt theo will rearm the rotation through free-agency. but we just don't have the pitching to win the world series this year.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6526 seconds
52 querie(s) executed