Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[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.

 

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?

I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M.

[apete6]

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?

I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M.

 

Which becomes approximately $1 Billion dollars if they win the World Series.

[davearm2]

I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M.

 

Which becomes approximately $1 Billion dollars if they win the World Series.

Show your work please ;)

[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.

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.

 

Well, then we're both on different pages because I was just using a general average of what the average ticket costs at Wrigley ($46.90) and likely will in the coming years ($50).

 

And even so, using local revenue per fan doesn't account for all the factors that you yourself listed above.

[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.

 

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?

I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M.

 

Here's the basis of his argument:

 

I didn't say I thought the Cubs' payroll would go down. I said it wasn't out of the question.

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates. Divide $30M into that (Pujols' estimated salary) and you'd need every one of those fans to show up, and generate $150 in revenue apiece, to cover Pujols' salary.

 

The Yankees pull in about $45 in revenue per fan. The Giants are tops in MLB, at $78 per fan.

 

So even under the absolute best case ($78 per fan x 200,000 fans = $15.6M), your added revenue covers about half of Pujols' salary. Make it about a third, if the Cubs' revenue rate is on par with the Yanks'.

 

Want to rethink that "walking moneymaker" theory?

 

Attendance numbers: http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-10attendance.htm

Revenues per fan: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-forbesmlbfans052209

 

Good luck.

[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?

I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M.

 

So they'd make $10-15 million over and above what their current (2011) revenue is without adding to the current (2011) payroll. That's definitely a profit. Maybe not a maximization of profit, but it's certainly profit.

[jersey cubs fan]

Here's the basis of his argument:

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates.

 

 

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed.

[Sammy Sofa]

Here's the basis of his argument:

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates.

 

 

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed.

 

It wasn't. I've been repeatedly bringing up how faulty it is.

[davearm2]

Are we counting the possible increase in the value of the franchise if it becomes more prestigious because the team is better?

The Forbes article linked earlier places the Cubs' franchise value at $773M, broken down as follows:

 

Sport: $133 mil

Market: $340 mil

Stadium: $172 mil

Brand Management: $128 mil

 

So let's say optimistically that adding Pujols boosts the value of the Cubs' brand by 10%. Now he's paid for about $13M of his contract... about 4% or 5% of a $250-300M deal.

[davearm2]

Here's the basis of his argument:

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates.

 

 

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed.

What would you estimate the Cubs' average annual attendance will be over the next 10 seasons?

 

For reference, it's averaged ~3.1M over the last ten years, and maxed out at 3.3M.

 

Hey if you've got a much better guess, then I'm all ears.

 

And for bonus points, give me one number with Pujols on the team, and one without.

Edited May 23, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

[davearm2]

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy.

[Sammy Sofa]

Here's the basis of his argument:

 

The Cubs' alltime attendance high was roughly 3.3M (in 2008). Last year it was about 3.1M. So they've got a ceiling of about 200K in additional fans through the gates.

 

 

I have no idea what is going on here but I hope this wasn't just accepted as the base from which any disagreement would be discussed.

What would you estimate the Cubs' average annual attendance will be over the next 10 seasons?

 

For reference, it's averaged ~3.1M over the last ten years.

 

Hey if you've got a much better guess, then I'm all ears.

 

And for bonus points, give me one number with Pujols on the team, and one without.

 

The decade average is based on the 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2008 teams and the "hangover seasons" that followed. What you see between in the 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons is an average of about 2.7 million (you can also include 1999 and 1998 in that average). Before that it was even lower. If the Cubs went into the next ten years without shelling out for FA like Pujols or Fielder then their average annual attendance will probably be around 2 million (or worse) by the end of that decade.

[Sammy Sofa]

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy.

 

But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself.

[davearm2]

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy.

 

But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself.

What it means to make money? I don't think I'm out in left field on that one.

[davearm2]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

[Sammy Sofa]

What percentage of players do you think "pay for" the money they make?

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy.

 

But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself.

What it means to make money? I don't think I'm out in left field on that one.

 

No; what "walking moneymaker" means. To you that apparently means somehow being able to completely offset the cost with some kind of identifiable, singular increase directly attributable to Pujols. To me, and seemingly everyone else, it means "make more money then they're making now."

[Sammy Sofa]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

 

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

[apete6]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

 

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

 

Isn't that pretty much any team, though? You have to have a solid combination of all of those things. Look at the Red Sox: yeah, they've traded for and resigned Gonzalez, signed Crawford, traded for Beckett, signed Lackey and Drew, etc... but they also have a ton of homegrown talent, including Pedroia, Youkilis, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bucholz, Bard, Lester, etc... in addition to some good buy low candidates such as Salty and Ortiz. Basically, they've done everything right and the Cubs haven't and that's why they've won. Well, that and Manny and Ortiz were on the juice.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

 

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

 

Isn't that pretty much any team, though? You have to have a solid combination of all of those things. Look at the Red Sox: yeah, they've traded for and resigned Gonzalez, signed Crawford, traded for Beckett, signed Lackey and Drew, etc... but they also have a ton of homegrown talent, including Pedroia, Youkilis, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bucholz, Bard, Lester, etc... in addition to some good buy low candidates such as Salty and Ortiz. Basically, they've done everything right and the Cubs haven't and that's why they've won. Well, that and Manny and Ortiz were on the juice.

 

Oh, there definitely has to be a balance. The problem is that the Cubs really don't have anyone in their farm system that project beyond beyond solid everyday players as their ceiling now that Castro is up. Those kind of prospects can still be plenty valuable, but the Cubs also need superstar "tent-pole" players they can build around.

[apete6]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

 

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

 

Isn't that pretty much any team, though? You have to have a solid combination of all of those things. Look at the Red Sox: yeah, they've traded for and resigned Gonzalez, signed Crawford, traded for Beckett, signed Lackey and Drew, etc... but they also have a ton of homegrown talent, including Pedroia, Youkilis, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bucholz, Bard, Lester, etc... in addition to some good buy low candidates such as Salty and Ortiz. Basically, they've done everything right and the Cubs haven't and that's why they've won. Well, that and Manny and Ortiz were on the juice.

 

Oh, there definitely has to be a balance. The problem is that the Cubs really don't have anyone in their farm system that project beyond beyond solid everyday players as their ceiling now that Castro is up. Those kind of prospects can still be plenty valuable, but the Cubs also need superstar "tent-pole" players they can build around.

 

Which is why it's such a depressing future for a Cubs fan.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's all moot anyway, he's staying in St. Louis.

 

And frankly I want nothing to do with Fielder and his basket of issues. So I hope you're wrong that the Cubs are doomed to an(other) entire decade of futility without either of those two guys.

 

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

 

It doesn't matter, the same people will want to let Castro walk when he's a free agent because it's too big of a risk to commit that much money to one player. Think of how many John Macdonalds we can buy with the money we'd be paying Castro.

[Sammy Sofa]

Which is why it's such a depressing future for a Cubs fan.

 

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when.

[apete6]

Which is why it's such a depressing future for a Cubs fan.

 

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when.

 

Agreed for the most part, but, like you said, are we confident that we have a GM to benefit from those positive things?

 

Also, as we've learned the hard way in the playoffs, without a few dominant starters and a few hitters people are afraid of, it's hard to win. It's nice to win 97 games, but when you don't have a no-doubt #1 pitcher or anyone who is almost guaranteed to hit in a series, it doesn't mean much.

 

Then again, losing in the playoffs is much preferred to the purgatory we're in now. If we could figure out a way to sign Pujols AND build around him, we'd be talking!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It doesn't matter, the same people will want to let Castro walk when he's a free agent because it's too big of a risk to commit that much money to one player. Think of how many John Macdonalds we can buy with the money we'd be paying Castro.

 

There's a huge, huge difference between signing a 27-year-old as an FA and a 32-year-old. I'm not going to say never give a guy his second FA contract, but I will say you should limit it to extremely rare circumstances.

 

Second FA contracts are almost always going to be a case of paying prime dollars for non-prime years. Unless you are at a point where the marginal value of a few extra wins is huge to you, it's not worth it. If the Cubs plan on adding a couple of other pieces, then they'll be a team that is right on the cusp with a big hole at 1b, so Pujols would be one of thoses cases where those marginal wins really will be huge.

 

Just sayin, though: He's got 911 PAs of .301/.397/.551 since turning 30, and the defensive metrics have nosedived on him the past few seasons.