Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

[98navigator]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

[Warren Brusstar]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

[98navigator]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games).

 

It is true in a traditional sense. Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced. The goal is to increase the cost of the ads yearly (at the worst they stay the same).

Edited April 2, 2007 by 98navigator

[Garwilly]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

98, are you seriously this dense? You made an assesrtion, and then when questioned on it said that others should find evidence to disprove your point. Seems backwards to me.

[98navigator]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

98, are you seriously this dense? You made an assesrtion, and then when questioned on it said that others should find evidence to disprove your point. Seems backwards to me.

 

Are you dense? If people are reading what I actually wrote then I don't think I am.

 

How about attacking the post and not the poster?

[Guest]

Let's all keep it friendly, guys.

[Garwilly]

98,

 

Please provide evidence of your assertions. Please show me where I can find the cost for an ad during a Sox game vs. that for a Cubs game. Until that is done, you are simply speculating.

 

98navigator wrote:

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

 

98navigator wrote:

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games).

[Jehrico]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games).

 

It is true in a traditional sense. Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced. The goal is to increase the cost of the ads yearly (at the worst they stay the same).

Considering how no one really knows exactly how the Trib keeps their books insofar as revenue derived from television broadcasts of the Cubs (how much of that goes to the Cubs, how much of it to the Trib), I don't think it's really possible to say definitively one way or the other.

[Warren Brusstar]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

You've said:

 

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

and

 

because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games

 

and

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games).

 

and

 

Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced.

 

and

 

The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior.

 

and

 

I understand how the ad prices are set. I also know the base price per ad.

 

So, basically, you've said (1) that the 2006 ratings serve as a starting point for 2007 ad rates; but that (2) the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long term success; and (3) you don't know whether they were successful.

 

No. 1 would surprise me a little bit, but I certainly don't have proof otherwise. I would think that ratings over a number of years would serve as a starting point.

 

But, more importantly, even if No. 1 is correct, and given Nos. 2 and 3, how can you say with any degree of certainty that "the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts"? You've already conceded that the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long-term success (and, I suspect, their offseason spending spree). And, you've conceded that you don't know the results of any negotiations.

 

In sum, you just don't know. So who is making the assumption?

[98navigator]

I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence.

 

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN.

 

It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic.

 

Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption.

 

OK...

 

Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this?

 

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

You've said:

 

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

and

 

because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games

 

and

 

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games).

 

and

 

Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced.

 

and

 

The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior.

 

and

 

I understand how the ad prices are set. I also know the base price per ad.

 

So, basically, you've said (1) that the 2006 ratings serve as a starting point for 2007 ad rates; but that (2) the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long term success; and (3) you don't know whether they were successful.

 

No. 1 would surprise me a little bit, but I certainly don't have proof otherwise. I would think that ratings over a number of years would serve as a starting point.

 

But, more importantly, even if No. 1 is correct, and given Nos. 2 and 3, how can you say with any degree of certainty that "the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts"? You've already conceded that the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long-term success (and, I suspect, their offseason spending spree). And, you've conceded that you don't know the results of any negotiations.

 

In sum, you just don't know. So who is making the assumption?

 

It's cool. I'll look it up. It's easy for you to say it isn't true...

[Vinestal]

I dont see how they think that last years rattings have bearing on what this years ratings will be. The WS ratings were high last year simply because the Cubs sucked horribly. We have a much better team and should be in contention all year, our ratings will probably be much better than the WS ratings this year. Seems like if you were an advertiser you'd want to throw your money behind the Cubs broadcast as opposed to WS. Maybe I missed the point but this seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[98navigator]

I dont see how they think that last years rattings have bearing on what this years ratings will be. The WS ratings were high last year simply because the Cubs sucked horribly. We have a much better team and should be in contention all year, our ratings will probably be much better than the WS ratings this year. Seems like if you were an advertiser you'd want to throw your money behind the Cubs broadcast as opposed to WS. Maybe I missed the point but this seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

Because the ad prices are set in advance and the advertising is sold before the season begins.

[98navigator]

Crain's Chicago Business

 

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

 

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

 

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

 

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

 

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

[Garwilly]

Crain's Chicago Business

 

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

 

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

 

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

 

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

 

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

 

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

[VanceJergins]

Crain's Chicago Business

 

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

 

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

 

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

 

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

 

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

 

Doesn't that prove you wrong?

[CubColtPacer]

Crain's Chicago Business

 

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

 

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

 

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

 

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

 

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

 

Doesn't that prove you wrong?

 

Those numbers are for the 2006 season-it is unknown currently what the 2007 rates are.

[98navigator]

Crain's Chicago Business

 

The White Sox failed to repeat as world champs this season, but they did beat the Cubs in local TV ratings for the first time in at least two decades.

 

The ratings are crucial because they ultimately translate into advertising dollars. Before the season began, WGN was asking some advertisers to pay $10,000 for a 30-second commercial during Cubs games vs. $9,000 during Sox games, according to an industry source. WGN, like the Cubs, is owned by Tribune Co.

 

In addition to TV ad rates, viewership determines how much the teams can charge for in-stadium advertising that may appear on television.

 

On both WGN and WCIU, the Sox's ratings for the season rose 21% over last year, to a 5.1, while the Cubs' fell 22% to a 4.5. One rating point equals 34,550 area households.

 

The Sox scored a 3.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet, up 19% from the previous season. The Cubs slipped 25% to a 2.9.

 

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year?

 

As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

[Mizzou]

Damn, must be nice to be able to make a billion dollar purchase.

[Soul]

I dont see how they think that last years rattings have bearing on what this years ratings will be. The WS ratings were high last year simply because the Cubs sucked horribly. We have a much better team and should be in contention all year, our ratings will probably be much better than the WS ratings this year. Seems like if you were an advertiser you'd want to throw your money behind the Cubs broadcast as opposed to WS. Maybe I missed the point but this seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

I have no idea what the advertising costs even are, so I don't have a basis to even argue either way.

[frostwyrm]

This makes retaining Hendry look even dumber. He's been allowed to make huge financial committments that will require a huge payroll to contend for the next few years, meanwhile the Tribune was for sale. We have no idea what the new owner will do to the payroll. This is yet another reason why the Cubs should have used 2007 for rebuilding. Considering all the circumstances I find it almost impossible to imagine a more inappropriate time to attempt an overnight worst-to-first turnaround.

 

I don't think it makes Hendry look dumber. I think the Tribune told Hendry they were opening the purse strings because they knew if Hendry spent a bunch of money this year he would raise the value of the Cubs. I read somewhere that after this offseason the Cubs value has gone up to around $600 million.

 

How does spending a bunch of money in an inflated personnel market make a team more valuable? Are the Royals more valuable because they signed Gil Meche? I'm not an economics wiz but I always thought organizational debt was an undesirable thing for a business.

 

Chicago Business[/url]"]An economic consulting firm has estimated the value of the Chicago Cubs at $600 million, 34% higher than the latest figures from Forbes magazine. Forbes’ estimates are the most widely cited valuations of sports franchises.

 

The Cubs’ massive, almost-$300-million investment in high-priced free agents such as center fielder Alfonso Soriano and new manager Lou Piniella during the offseason, plus the addition of several new revenue streams including new seats and signage in Wrigley Field, have pushed the team’s value up significantly, says Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC.

 

Mr. Mahon says he and two other Anderson economists and baseball fans, Ilhan Geckil and Patrick Anderson, performed a “serious study” with “econometric rigor” using the discounted cash flow method of asset valuation to come up with the $600-million figure.

 

The team’s offseason signings, which include third baseman Aramis Ramirez, starting pitchers Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis and second baseman Mark DeRosa, are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

I don't understand. Investing $21M in a crapbucket player like Jason Marquis is considered a good thing? In that case Hendry should have signed Jose Macias to a 3/30 deal and pushed the team's value up even further.

 

In all seriousness, can somebody with an econ background explain how all these huge financial committments to players are supposed to have increased the value of the team? I'm completely baffled as to how this works. I always thought debt was a bad thing for a business, and absence of debt was a good thing. Have I been wrong all these years?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

In all seriousness, can somebody with an econ background explain how all these huge financial committments to players are supposed to have increased the value of the team? I'm completely baffled as to how this works. I always thought debt was a bad thing for a business, and absence of debt was a good thing. Have I been wrong all these years?

 

Unless the rules have changed recently, I think it's a tax break. You can count the value of the contracts as an asset, and as they are paid out you can count that as depreciation, or some such, for five years.

[CubsInNC]

In all seriousness, can somebody with an econ background explain how all these huge financial committments to players are supposed to have increased the value of the team? I'm completely baffled as to how this works. I always thought debt was a bad thing for a business, and absence of debt was a good thing. Have I been wrong all these years?

 

No econ background here, but I'll tell you how I understand it. Corporately, debt is bad. However, it's bad debt that's "really bad". Debt accrued for things that are guaranteed to fail, or already have, like if we owed Sammy Sosa $11million a year, in deferred money for the next 5 years, or owed $400mil on a stadium that always sat empty. The Cubs have increased their costs for future years, by signing all these guys to contracts, however, by signing (at least some) of these players they are increasing their likelihood of a very solid return on that investment. Individually, there may be some really bad promises of payment in that mix, but overall, the return on the investment (no matter how poor part of it might be) will be worth the cost.

 

That's at least how I understand it.

[frostwyrm]

In all seriousness, can somebody with an econ background explain how all these huge financial committments to players are supposed to have increased the value of the team? I'm completely baffled as to how this works. I always thought debt was a bad thing for a business, and absence of debt was a good thing. Have I been wrong all these years?

 

No econ background here, but I'll tell you how I understand it. Corporately, debt is bad. However, it's bad debt that's "really bad". Debt accrued for things that are guaranteed to fail, or already have, like if we owed Sammy Sosa $11million a year, in deferred money for the next 5 years, or owed $400mil on a stadium that always sat empty. The Cubs have increased their costs for future years, by signing all these guys to contracts, however, by signing (at least some) of these players they are increasing their likelihood of a very solid return on that investment. Individually, there may be some really bad promises of payment in that mix, but overall, the return on the investment (no matter how poor part of it might be) will be worth the cost.

 

That's at least how I understand it.

I still don't get it. Hendry did nothing to maximize bang for the buck on these deals. He paid top dollar for every ounce of improvement he made to the overall talent level of the club. I don't understand how that should increase the value of the team. The Cubs have certainly gotten better, but they took on a gazillion dollars of debt to get that way. If Hendry had made some great moves that improved the team's talent level without incurring a ton of debt then I can see how that would have increased the value of the team, but that's not what happened.

[CubsInNC]

In all seriousness, can somebody with an econ background explain how all these huge financial committments to players are supposed to have increased the value of the team? I'm completely baffled as to how this works. I always thought debt was a bad thing for a business, and absence of debt was a good thing. Have I been wrong all these years?

 

No econ background here, but I'll tell you how I understand it. Corporately, debt is bad. However, it's bad debt that's "really bad". Debt accrued for things that are guaranteed to fail, or already have, like if we owed Sammy Sosa $11million a year, in deferred money for the next 5 years, or owed $400mil on a stadium that always sat empty. The Cubs have increased their costs for future years, by signing all these guys to contracts, however, by signing (at least some) of these players they are increasing their likelihood of a very solid return on that investment. Individually, there may be some really bad promises of payment in that mix, but overall, the return on the investment (no matter how poor part of it might be) will be worth the cost.

 

That's at least how I understand it.

I still don't get it. Hendry did nothing to maximize bang for the buck on these deals. He paid top dollar for every ounce of improvement he made to the overall talent level of the club. I don't understand how that should increase the value of the team. The Cubs have certainly gotten better, but they took on a gazillion dollars of debt to get that way. If Hendry had made some great moves that improved the team's talent level without incurring a ton of debt then I can see how that would have increased the value of the team, but that's not what happened.

 

I would suppose that the cost of winning versus the return on the investment is not a dollar for dollar even trade. Based on the acquisition of the players (and staff) they acquired this offseason, they are projected to earn x number of dollars. The increase in earnings from last year to this year are proportional to the "winningness" of the players/debts acquired (or lost). Because of the increase in earnings as a whole team for the duration of each contract will outweigh the cost associated with maintaining that team, the value of the franchise then rose. Marquis is owed $21mil a year over the next 3 years. Add into that everyone else who is guaranteed to be paid a set amount over those 3 years. And the forecast is that they will earn more than they spend, by such a rate because of those persons, that the overall speculative value for the team for that 3 year span, is higher by some % of those profits.