PDA

View Full Version : DeLuca Column


Lip Man 1
12-05-2004, 01:41 PM
Chris DeLuca in the Sun-Times has a column today about the troubles in baseball. I was struck by this paragraph:

"Level playing field? Considering the two teams that reached the World Series -- the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals -- each had payrolls of more than $100 million, the playing field is still pretty tilted.

Consider, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers -- despite getting extra financial help from the new economic programs -- are as miserly as they ever were. A large-market team such as Jerry Reinsdorf's White Sox still operates as though it's doing business in Duluth by constantly crying poor."

Truer words were never spoken.....

Lip

Hangar18
12-05-2004, 02:22 PM
Jerry Rein$dorf reads this and will Rationalize to you that he spent 99Million and it got him nowhere

cburns
12-05-2004, 02:39 PM
The Cardinals had a 100 million dollar payroll?

minastirith67
12-05-2004, 03:33 PM
I'm glad this is finally being reported in Chicago.

MisterB
12-05-2004, 05:13 PM
The Cardinals had a 100 million dollar payroll?
The Cards payroll was $83M. DeLuca got it wrong.

southsider17
12-05-2004, 05:17 PM
The Cardinals had a 100 million dollar payroll?
There payroll was $81.58 mil before the Walker pick-up and he makes $12.5 mil (plus the Rockies payed a portion of that I believe).

So to answer your question .......... NO!

:bs:

batmanZoSo
12-05-2004, 06:38 PM
The Cards payroll was $83M. DeLuca got it wrong.
Wow that's extremely low for the amount of talent they have. Talk about an organization that's run right. If you retain everybody from last year, our payroll wouldn't be far behind that, but light years behind in talent.

santo=dorf
12-05-2004, 07:14 PM
There payroll was $81.58 mil before the Walker pick-up and he makes $12.5 mil (plus the Rockies payed a portion of that I believe).

So to answer your question .......... NO!

:bs:
And they picked him up in August when more than half of that 12.5 million was already paid.

:bs:

voodoochile
12-05-2004, 07:59 PM
And they picked him up in August when more than half of that 12.5 million was already paid.

:bs:
And they weren't even close to good enough to win the Series against a team with almost 50% more spent on players...

southsider17
12-05-2004, 08:12 PM
And they weren't even close to good enough to win the Series against a team with almost 50% more spent on players...
Oh, come on. It's not so much how much you spend but rather how you spend it.

batmanZoSo
12-05-2004, 08:33 PM
And they weren't even close to good enough to win the Series against a team with almost 50% more spent on players...
The Red Sox were on a tear to end all tears and the Cardinals were flat out in a funk. That series could go either way whenever you play it.

Lip Man 1
12-05-2004, 08:34 PM
South:

It's both. Despite the A's and Twins for example having exceptionally good organizations neither one has made a World Series because when all is said and done they are coming up short on talent.

Talent costs money...a lot of it... to get the needed depth that in a five or seven game series can make all the difference in the world.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2004, 08:56 PM
And they weren't even close to good enough to win the Series against a team with almost 50% more spent on players...And the Red Sox beat a team with about 50% more in payroll than them. Point?

voodoochile
12-05-2004, 09:09 PM
And the Red Sox beat a team with about 50% more in payroll than them. Point?
That great pitching beats great hitting... :D:

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2004, 09:22 PM
That great pitching beats great hitting... :D:Even if the team with good hitting has a higher payroll? How can that be?

voodoochile
12-05-2004, 09:36 PM
Even if the team with good hitting has a higher payroll? How can that be?
Let's not kid ourselves here, ON2. Those were the top two payrolls in baseball this year. It's not like we are talking about low budget teams. Yes, once you get to a certain point, you can compete with anyone. It's the other teams that don't stand much chance.

I mean if you can afford Schilling, Pedro and Rameriz or ARod, Matsui and Sheffield, you are going to be a pretty decent team no matter what...

mweflen
12-06-2004, 10:57 AM
how about a link? i try to keep my sun times site-browsing to a minimum when trying to find an article... (because of: 1. all their pop-up spam and 2. all their crappy columnists)

southsider17
12-06-2004, 11:16 AM
South:

It's both. Despite the A's and Twins for example having exceptionally good organizations neither one has made a World Series because when all is said and done they are coming up short on talent.

Talent costs money...a lot of it... to get the needed depth that in a five or seven game series can make all the difference in the world.

Lip
Both are a luxury few teams have. The Yankees have the "how much" advantage but arguable need work on the "how". Of the two the, the "how" is more important than the "how much".

The playoffs are a crap shoot considering the time frame. Player streakiness becomes a huge factor. Hitting, being the most inconsistent of the triad (hitting, pitching and defense), is the area that suffers the most loss of influence in the playoffs, whereas pitching and defense come into more prominence.

The "how much" factor comes into play when you can add quality depth on your team (as you said) especially in the hitting department since the more quality hitters you have the more likely you can tap a "hot" hitter for a playoff run. Your pitching depth becomes less relavant since rotations are shortened and 4th and 5th starters are pushed to the pen, thus improving them.

Here's an interesting article regarding what works in the playoffs:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/so-billy-what-does-work-in-the-playoffs/

blesto-v
12-06-2004, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE=southsider17]Both are a luxury few teams have. The Yankees have the "how much" advantage but arguably need work on the "how". Of the two the, the "how" is more important than the "how much".

God!......talk about overanalyzing something!!!...:angry:

This is the same team (Yanks) that came within THREE OUTS of going to the World Series...........and you lay their failure to do so at HOW they spent their money??????..........whachoo been drinkin'?.......:gulp:

Their deep pockets got them to within 3 outs and one guy, Mariano Rivera, doesn't do HIS job and you conclude that Brian Cashman spent his $183M unwisely......???

Realistically, we need Chairman Jerry to loosen the purse strings........the days of that lame-O "well, it's only the AL Central" argument are ending..............the Tigers are spending and it's just a matter of time before our White Sox complacency about being in a "weak" division is going to get a nasty wakeup call......

"southsider", it's your kind of thinking that's wrong with lots of Sox fans.....

:dtroll:

southsider17
12-06-2004, 11:50 AM
You should learn how to properly use the "Quote" feature, first of all, newbie.

God!......talk about overanalyzing something!!!...:angry:

This is the same team (Yanks) that came within THREE OUTS of going to the World Series...........and you lay their failure to do so at HOW they spent their money??????..........whachoo been drinkin'?.......:gulp:

Their deep pockets got them to within 3 outs and one guy, Mariano Rivera, doesn't do HIS job and you conclude that Brian Cashman spent his $183M unwisely......???Yes. I see you understand me completely.

Realistically, we need Chairman Jerry to loosen the purse strings........"we"? :wink:

the days of that lame-O "well, it's only the AL Central" argument are ending..............the Tigers are spending and it's just a matter of time before our White Sox complacency about being in a "weak" division is going to get a nasty wakeup call......

"southsider", it's your kind of thinking that's wrong with lots of Sox fans.....

:dtroll:More money can't hurt, of course. It would actually help KW take the "shotgun" approach to building a team and minimize the effect of his ....... well, ineffectiveness. Now before the Kenny Lovers decend on me, I know he's made some good moves, but at the WSox budget we need a GM to make alot of good moves. Thus the importance of "how".

Up north, where we jealously point out how a Chicago team ought to spend, they are still working on the "how" to get them back in the playoffs even after they significantly improved their "how much" this past season.

:neener:

gosox41
12-06-2004, 01:04 PM
There payroll was $81.58 mil before the Walker pick-up and he makes $12.5 mil (plus the Rockies payed a portion of that I believe).

So to answer your question .......... NO!

:bs:
Damn facts always getting in the way.



Bob

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 01:26 PM
Let's not kid ourselves here, ON2. Those were the top two payrolls in baseball this year. It's not like we are talking about low budget teams. Yes, once you get to a certain point, you can compete with anyone. It's the other teams that don't stand much chance.

I mean if you can afford Schilling, Pedro and Rameriz or ARod, Matsui and Sheffield, you are going to be a pretty decent team no matter what...By other teams, do you mean low budget teams? Like the Mariners and Angels, for example? Low budget teams have won 2 of the last 3 WS.

voodoochile
12-06-2004, 01:39 PM
By other teams, do you mean low budget teams? Like the Mariners and Angels, for example? Low budget teams have won 2 of the last 3 WS.
Also, 3 of the last 10 or so, IIRC...:?:

Damned stats, you can twist them any which way you want to...

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 01:53 PM
Also, 3 of the last 10 or so, IIRC...:?:

Damned stats, you can twist them any which way you want to...How many of those were won by a team with the worst farm system in the majors? Does that imply that a bad farm system improves your odds?

stillz
12-06-2004, 02:07 PM
The "how much" factor comes into play when you can add quality depth on your team. Agreed. A number 5 starter, another mid-infielder, and more relief pitchers would help. Hopefully, this weekend bears fruit.

voodoochile
12-06-2004, 02:08 PM
How many of those were won by a team with the worst farm system in the majors? Does that imply that a bad farm system improves your odds?
No, on the contrary, it proves exactly what I've been saying all along - that money wins championships.

Also want to point out that coming into that decade, that "worst in the majors farm system" had produced several stars (Jeter, Rivera, Pettite, Posada (I think)) who were major factors in those championships, so it might be that the Yankees (that is who we are talking about here, right?) decided to start dumping farm players for proven stars that they paid big money for and thus depleted what was left of that farm system in order to win championships. That may have had something to do with their current rating.

But, now, why would they care? They won so much, the fans throw money at them in bushels. They won so much they were able to create and market a private TV network to generate even MORE money. They won so much the system became self-perpetuating and now they can afford to keep spending all the money they want. They won so much they can't stop making money and thus continue spending and continue winning.

But of course NONE of that money they spent matters in the slightest :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 03:40 PM
No, on the contrary, it proves exactly what I've been saying all along - that money wins championships.

Also want to point out that coming into that decade, that "worst in the majors farm system" had produced several stars (Jeter, Rivera, Pettite, Posada (I think)) who were major factors in those championships, so it might be that the Yankees (that is who we are talking about here, right?) decided to start dumping farm players for proven stars that they paid big money for and thus depleted what was left of that farm system in order to win championships. That may have had something to do with their current rating.

But, now, why would they care? They won so much, the fans throw money at them in bushels. They won so much they were able to create and market a private TV network to generate even MORE money. They won so much the system became self-perpetuating and now they can afford to keep spending all the money they want. They won so much they can't stop making money and thus continue spending and continue winning.

But of course NONE of that money they spent matters in the slightest :rolleyes:Actually, the Yankees were most dominant in the late 90's when they had BOTH the products of their farm system that you mentioned AND big buckets of money. IMO, their recent decline (relatively speaking) is due to the declining production of their farm system and the inevitable result, which is an over-reliance on high-priced players, which further depletes the farm system, driving payrolls even higher, on and on, ad infinitum. What I've been saying all along is not that money doesn't matter, but it's just one factor among many that contribute to success.

And as a matter of fact, this could be the year that the bubble bursts. If they let their payroll get much higher, then they could be approaching $300M with luxury tax and revenue sharing. It's doubtful even the Yankees could generate enough revenue to do that.

Iwritecode
12-06-2004, 04:23 PM
Actually, the Yankees were most dominant in the late 90's when they had BOTH the products of their farm system that you mentioned AND big buckets of money. IMO, their recent decline (relatively speaking) is due to the declining production of their farm system and the inevitable result, which is an over-reliance on high-priced players, which further depletes the farm system, driving payrolls even higher, on and on, ad infinitum. What I've been saying all along is not that money doesn't matter, but it's just one factor among many that contribute to success.

And as a matter of fact, this could be the year that the bubble bursts. If they let their payroll get much higher, then they could be approaching $300M with luxury tax and revenue sharing. It's doubtful even the Yankees could generate enough revenue to do that.

I think you are underestimating them. The fact that they just about sell out every single game, plus the money they generate from the playoffs, PLUS the cable deal I think they could spend over $300M and STILL make a profit...

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 04:30 PM
I think you are underestimating them. The fact that they just about sell out every single game, plus the money they generate from the playoffs, PLUS the cable deal I think they could spend over $300M and STILL make a profit...Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope figuring. Let's be generous and assume they draw 4 million fans. If they net an average of $30 each (counting concessions, etc.), that's $120M total. Their cable deal is worth $150M. That's a total of $270M. There might be a few other small revenue streams, and these are just wild-ass guesses, but I have to figure the top end can't be much more than $300M. And on the expense side, there's more than just payroll. Coaches, minor league systems, front office people, all add considerable cost. I don't know where their limit is, but it can't be that far off.

voodoochile
12-06-2004, 05:15 PM
Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope figuring. Let's be generous and assume they draw 4 million fans. If they net an average of $30 each (counting concessions, etc.), that's $120M total. Their cable deal is worth $150M. That's a total of $270M. There might be a few other small revenue streams, and these are just wild-ass guesses, but I have to figure the top end can't be much more than $300M. And on the expense side, there's more than just payroll. Coaches, minor league systems, front office people, all add considerable cost. I don't know where their limit is, but it can't be that far off.
First off, I'd bet that $30/person figure is WAY low. The Yanks are probably getting closer to $50/person when all is said and done. Most (Aall?) of their tickets are full price tickets, ALL of their box seats and skyboxes are sold and they have the highest average ticket price in the majors. Your number seems very low.

You also didn't count in post season sales money, parphenalia (hats, shirts, mugs, etc), parking revenue (though I admit, I have no idea if that is they get any or not or national TV contract money.

Also, lets look at it this way. If the owners DO start a serious revenue sharing program, the Yankees are going to have to kick in a WHOLE lot of money to the smaller clubs. They are going to be in that area regardless, they might as well spend it and continue to win.

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 05:37 PM
First off, I'd bet that $30/person figure is WAY low. The Yanks are probably getting closer to $50/person when all is said and done. Most (Aall?) of their tickets are full price tickets, ALL of their box seats and skyboxes are sold and they have the highest average ticket price in the majors. Your number seems very low.

You also didn't count in post season sales money, parphenalia (hats, shirts, mugs, etc), parking revenue (though I admit, I have no idea if that is they get any or not or national TV contract money.

Also, lets look at it this way. If the owners DO start a serious revenue sharing program, the Yankees are going to have to kick in a WHOLE lot of money to the smaller clubs. They are going to be in that area regardless, they might as well spend it and continue to win.The 2004 Fan Cost index for the Yankees is $184 for 4 people, or $46 each. The average ticket is just under $25 (NOT the highest in the majors). The rest includes food, souveneirs, parking and all the rest of that stuff, and these cost the team something to buy and to pay people to sell them, so it's not all profit. Even if they net $35 per person, that doesn't change the results that much. And I'm being pretty generous assuming 4 million fans anyway. This was just meant to be a rough estimate, but I'll bet I'm within 10% or so.

You also need to factor in other costs. MLB-wide, player payroll accounts for just over 50% of the team's total costs. There's also the farm system, coaches, scouts, front office, marketing, advertising, etc. So if we estimate another $70M in costs over and above player payroll, luxury tax and revenue sharing, they would really need somewhere around $370M in revenues to break even. I don't think my estimate was that far off. I think the bubble is getting near the bursting point.

MisterB
12-06-2004, 07:26 PM
The average ticket is just under $25 (NOT the highest in the majors).
What is your source on that? By checking the Yanks' ticket prices (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nyy/ballpark/seating_pricing.jsp), only the upper half of the upper deck and the bleachers are under $25.

Paulwny
12-06-2004, 07:35 PM
No one factored in luxury suites, in NYC the price has to be steep, $300 mil is very possible.

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 10:21 PM
What is your source on that? By checking the Yanks' ticket prices (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nyy/ballpark/seating_pricing.jsp), only the upper half of the upper deck and the bleachers are under $25.All data is from TMR.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_mlb2004.cfm