Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[davearm2]

Tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be under your hypothetical: a $130M payroll, and Pujols playing 1B.

 

Then tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be with a $100M payroll, and Tyler Colvin playing 1B. All other roster spots identical.

 

Answer that question, and you'll know whether or not signing Pujols improves the Cubs' bottom line. And I'm telling you the revenue impact is less than $30M, making the latter scenario (the roster without Pujols) the more profitable one.

 

Nooooooo. They're spending X payroll either way. If $130mil is the payroll budget, they'll spend ~$130 million with or without Pujols.

Not if they're maximizing profits they won't.

 

EDIT: before anyone gets even more confused, I'm not saying the Cubs SHOULD or WILL act to maximize profits. I'm just pointing out what the course of action would be if they did.

 

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

[Banedon]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

[davearm2]

Tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be under your hypothetical: a $130M payroll, and Pujols playing 1B.

 

Then tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be with a $100M payroll, and Tyler Colvin playing 1B. All other roster spots identical.

 

Answer that question, and you'll know whether or not signing Pujols improves the Cubs' bottom line. And I'm telling you the revenue impact is less than $30M, making the latter scenario (the roster without Pujols) the more profitable one.

 

Nooooooo. They're spending X payroll either way. If $130mil is the payroll budget, they'll spend ~$130 million with or without Pujols.

Not if they're maximizing profits they won't.

 

EDIT: before anyone gets even more confused, I'm not saying the Cubs SHOULD or WILL act to maximize profits. I'm just pointing out what the course of action would be if they did.

 

So then why even bring it up unless it's to just dig yourself out of the hole you've burrowed so furiously into?

I brought it up to disprove the misinformation you were putting out there.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, is that what it is?

 

This is getting pretty crazy.

 

Plus I trumped you with your crazy ticket sales uber alles thesis.

[davearm2]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself?

 

Nobody ever said he needs to or would.

[davearm2]

Oh, is that what it is?

 

This is getting pretty crazy.

 

Plus I trumped you with your crazy ticket sales uber alles thesis.

You didn't, actually.

 

The decline in attendance the Cubs have witnessed this year is due to a combination of factors: the team's not as good, the weather's been crappy, the economy's still bad, attendance is down around baseball, etc.

 

Pujols only helps the first of those. Expecting some miraculous return to 2008 if they sign Pujols is foolish, but even more foolish would be to attribute it entirely to Pujols.

[Banedon]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself?

 

It's a gamble. Every signing is. You're gambling that Pujols can help you win, and that winning will bring in more revenue. If Pujols falls apart right after signing, the Cubs will lose money on the deal. There's no way to figure out the money that Pujols will bring in. The act of trying to is an activity I have no interest in.

 

I believe that Pujols would help the Cubs win, and thus increase their income.

[davearm2]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself?

 

Nobody ever said he needs to or would.

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, is that what it is?

 

This is getting pretty crazy.

 

Plus I trumped you with your crazy ticket sales uber alles thesis.

You didn't, actually.

 

The decline in attendance the Cubs have witnessed this year is due to a combination of factors: the team's not as good, the weather's been crappy, the economy's still bad, attendance is down around baseball, etc.

 

Pujols only helps the first of those. Expecting some miraculous return to 2008 if they sign Pujols is foolish, but even more foolish would be to attribute it entirely to Pujols.

 

I never did. Pujols would just be a huge part to putting a consistently playoff-competitive team on the field, which we've seen leads to the Cubs selling 3.2-3.3 million tickets during the regular season.

 

And the obvious primary reason that attendance is down is because the team stinks. The Cubs have dealt with horrible weather and the bad economy and, hey, shocker, still sold 3.2+ million tickets. Why? Because the team was good, or at least competitive. And signing Pujols would be a huge singular move towards getting there again.

[dew1679666265]

That's not the correct comparison to be looking at, because you're not isolating Pujols' impact.

 

Tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be under your hypothetical: a $130M payroll, and Pujols playing 1B.

 

Then tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be with a $100M payroll, and Tyler Colvin playing 1B. All other roster spots identical.

 

Answer that question, and you'll know whether or not signing Pujols improves the Cubs' bottom line. And I'm telling you the revenue impact is less than $30M, making the latter scenario (the roster without Pujols) the more profitable one.

 

Yes, you're correct that the Cubs would be more profitable if they dropped payroll to $100 million and played Colvin at first. That's not something that might happen, though.

 

Mojo's comment was in regard to Pujols making the Cubs more money than they are making now if they sign him - that's an accurate statement. The "walking moneybags" was in reference to how he would be more profitable to the team than any other FA or trade options they could invest that $30 million into - and that, as well, is accurate. If the debate were about whether or not to spend that $30 million extra each year, then you're argument would be completely relevant. However, the debate is which scenario is more profitable for the team - signing Pujols or allocating that $30 million to multiple other players. If the money is going to be spent either way - which it presumably is - then Pujols will make the Cubs more money than the alternatives, and that's what's relevant to Mojo's original comment.

[Sammy Sofa]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

Yes, in a loop of insanity.

 

This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it?

[davearm2]

I'll admit to being confused. Because what you're arguing doesn't matter. Who cares what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where winning is meaningless? The appeal of signing Pujols is the combination of playing ability and his "money making-ness". Of course it doesn't make financial sense if you take playing ability/winning out of the picture.

Just stop with, "the appeal of signing Pujols is his playing ability" and you'll be fine. ;)

 

Nope.

Alright you want to take a crack at computing how Pujols is going to generate more than $30M in additional revenue all by himself?

 

It's a gamble. Every signing is. You're gambling that Pujols can help you win, and that winning will bring in more revenue. If Pujols falls apart right after signing, the Cubs will lose money on the deal. There's no way to figure out the money that Pujols will bring in. The act of trying to is an activity I have no interest in.

 

I believe that Pujols would help the Cubs win, and thus increase their income.

If you owned the Cubs, would you investigate this as part of your decisionmaking process? It's a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis. Getting the numbers right might be a challenge but conceptually it's very basic.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's not the correct comparison to be looking at, because you're not isolating Pujols' impact.

 

Tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be under your hypothetical: a $130M payroll, and Pujols playing 1B.

 

Then tell me what the Cubs' profit level would be with a $100M payroll, and Tyler Colvin playing 1B. All other roster spots identical.

 

Answer that question, and you'll know whether or not signing Pujols improves the Cubs' bottom line. And I'm telling you the revenue impact is less than $30M, making the latter scenario (the roster without Pujols) the more profitable one.

 

Yes, you're correct that the Cubs would be more profitable if they dropped payroll to $100 million and played Colvin at first. That's not something that might happen, though.

 

Mojo's comment was in regard to Pujols making the Cubs more money than they are making now if they sign him - that's an accurate statement. The "walking moneybags" was in reference to how he would be more profitable to the team than any other FA or trade options they could invest that $30 million into - and that, as well, is accurate. If the debate were about whether or not to spend that $30 million extra each year, then you're argument would be completely relevant. However, the debate is which scenario is more profitable for the team - signing Pujols or allocating that $30 million to multiple other players. If the money is going to be spent either way - which it presumably is - then Pujols will make the Cubs more money than the alternatives, and that's what's relevant to Mojo's original comment.

 

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[davearm2]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

Yes, in a loop of insanity.

 

This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it?

Marginal analysis is completely beyond your grasp, I see.

 

A loser deal is still a loser deal whether you're printing money like Google or taking it in the shorts like the Wilpons.

[Banedon]

If you owned the Cubs, would you investigate this as part of your decisionmaking process? It's a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis. Getting the numbers right might be a challenge but conceptually it's very basic.

 

Investigate it, sure. Fine. It's all a educated guess in the end.

[Sammy Sofa]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

Yes, in a loop of insanity.

 

This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it?

Marginal analysis is completely beyond your grasp, I see.

 

A loser deal is still a loser deal whether you're printing money like Google or taking it in the shorts like the Wilpons.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat isssssssssssssss thiiiiiiiiisssssssssssss.

 

You're talking about this like the Cubs would automatically be spending more on their players than they are this year. You're also talking about the ticket revenue and Pujols' salary like they exist in a vacuum.

[davearm2]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

Yes, in a loop of insanity.

 

This statement you just made only makes sense if you are honestly convinced that the Cubs are running at a loss or would be running at a loss if they signed Pujols for $30 million a year. Which is it?

Marginal analysis is completely beyond your grasp, I see.

 

A loser deal is still a loser deal whether you're printing money like Google or taking it in the shorts like the Wilpons.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat isssssssssssssss thiiiiiiiiisssssssssssss.

 

You're talking about this like the Cubs would automatically be spending more on their players than they are this year. You're also talking about the ticket revenue and Pujols' salary like they exist in a vacuum.

Assess the Cubs' financials. Compute their profitability.

 

Add Pujols. Recompute their profitability, given $30M in additional costs, x additional ticket sales, y additional media revenue, z additional sponsorship revenue, etc.

 

Compare profitability A with profitability B.

 

Marginal analysis.

[dew1679666265]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money?

[Prizefight]

Just read pages 20-41 of this thread. Quite a thing indeed.

 

 

I'll pass on Pujols if the rumored 8 years minimum is indeed true considering the money he'll want and age towards the end of the contract. Hopefully St. Louis signs him for 10/300

[Sammy Sofa]

Add Pujols. Recompute their profitability, given $30M in additional costs, x additional ticket sales, y additional media revenue, z additional sponsorship revenue, etc.

Compare profitability A with profitability B.

 

Marginal analysis.

 

But you didn't do most of that. All you did was break down whether $30 million would be offset by a gate revenue increased based on 3.3 million fans instead of 3.1 million fans. That's it.

[davearm2]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money?

They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more.

[Sammy Sofa]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money?

They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more.

 

But again that's a pointless tangent since nobody has any reason to talk about a fantasy world where we're all on the edge of their seats where the Cubs maximize their ever-shrinking profit margin by spending as little as possible. This is a team that has money to spend and will spend mightily.

[dew1679666265]

Except that's how you make money. And around we go.

 

So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money?

They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more.

 

So you can prove that the increase in profit was not due to Pujols and that he had no impact on the profit increase? How so?

[davearm2]

Add Pujols. Recompute their profitability, given $30M in additional costs, x additional ticket sales, y additional media revenue, z additional sponsorship revenue, etc.

Compare profitability A with profitability B.

 

Marginal analysis.

 

But you didn't do most of that. All you did was break down whether $30 million would be offset by a gate revenue increased based on 3.3 million fans instead of 3.1 million fans. That's it.

I didn't use gate revenue. I used average local revenue per fan. It's an all-in number. And it's in your Forbes article.