Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[Conky]

Snip

Snip

 

So maybe the FO ought to tell the paying public exactly what the "big picture" is instead of expecting everyone to "keep the faith" when they sign Reed Johnson because it's part of a mysterious big plan

 

If Marmol's arm explodes or if either has another bad season' date=' they become much less valuable.[/color']

 

The expected rosters of the 2012 & 2013 Chicago Cubs.

 

The poll will be taken at the box office when the team loses revenue for 2-3 years.

 

I completely disagree with the notion that the front office should openly announce their strategy to the public, all of MLB, or the agents and GMs they are in daily negotiations with.

 

Your second point has nothing to do with the discussion over perceived value for Soto and Marmol now. Of course if Marmol's arm explodes or Soto has another bad season, their value will drop. In other news, the sky is blue. lol

 

We have no idea what the expected rosters will look like in 2012 or 2013. Pure speculation and hand wringing over events that have not transpired as yet.

 

Indeed it will. Thing is, you are not factoring in the drop in payroll in this scenario, so revenue is a bit tough to project. The Ricketts are shrewd business people. I trust they have the foresight to factor in possible outcomes to different business approaches.

 

That said, some meatball fans may stay away next year. New fans may also take their places. This is not the same scenario as the end of last year. Not by any stretch. Cubs fans are very intelligent and informed (for the most part). With a new team/ ballpark/ and brand on the rise, I think people will come out. I know I certainly will.

[pccubfan]

Snip

Snip

 

So maybe the FO ought to tell the paying public exactly what the "big picture" is instead of expecting everyone to "keep the faith" when they sign Reed Johnson because it's part of a mysterious big plan

 

If Marmol's arm explodes or if either has another bad season' date=' they become much less valuable.[/color']

 

The expected rosters of the 2012 & 2013 Chicago Cubs.

 

The poll will be taken at the box office when the team loses revenue for 2-3 years.

 

I completely disagree with the notion that the front office should openly announce their strategy to the public, all of MLB, or the agents and GMs they are in daily negotiations with.

 

Your second point has nothing to do with the discussion over perceived value for Soto and Marmol now. Of course if Marmol's arm explodes or Soto has another bad season, their value will drop. In other news, the sky is blue. lol

 

We have no idea what the expected rosters will look like in 2012 or 2013. Pure speculation and hand wringing over events that have not transpired as yet.

 

Indeed it will. Thing is, you are not factoring in the drop in payroll in this scenario, so revenue is a bit tough to project. The Ricketts are shrewd business people. I trust they have the foresight to factor in possible outcomes to different business approaches.

 

That said, some meatball fans may stay away next year. New fans may also take their places. This is not the same scenario as the end of last year. Not by any stretch. Cubs fans are very intelligent and informed (for the most part). With a new team/ ballpark/ and brand on the rise, I think people will come out. I know I certainly will.

 

Are you flat out ignoring the post that started this discussion? He made presumptions about what he thought would happen including how the major league roster would be constructed. So those are the guidelines being used to construct the 2012 or 2013 roster.

 

Sure payroll will likely drop to counter the revenue dropping. But in order to make a big free agent acquisition in the future, a scenario you don't dismiss, ownership will likely have to make a leap of faith and increase payroll over the revenue that is being collected.

 

I certainly agree that the Ricketts are shrewd business people and I agree that they have considered all of these factors and have all sorts of what-if forecasts. Most teams are owned by such people. However, we aren't talking profitability here. We are talking about building a championship contending baseball team. I don't think that the Tribune Company probably ever took a loss via the Cubs but that didn't get the Cubs to a World Series.

[Conky]

Snip

Snip

 

So maybe the FO ought to tell the paying public exactly what the "big picture" is instead of expecting everyone to "keep the faith" when they sign Reed Johnson because it's part of a mysterious big plan

 

If Marmol's arm explodes or if either has another bad season' date=' they become much less valuable.[/color']

 

The expected rosters of the 2012 & 2013 Chicago Cubs.

 

The poll will be taken at the box office when the team loses revenue for 2-3 years.

 

I completely disagree with the notion that the front office should openly announce their strategy to the public, all of MLB, or the agents and GMs they are in daily negotiations with.

 

Your second point has nothing to do with the discussion over perceived value for Soto and Marmol now. Of course if Marmol's arm explodes or Soto has another bad season, their value will drop. In other news, the sky is blue. lol

 

We have no idea what the expected rosters will look like in 2012 or 2013. Pure speculation and hand wringing over events that have not transpired as yet.

 

Indeed it will. Thing is, you are not factoring in the drop in payroll in this scenario, so revenue is a bit tough to project. The Ricketts are shrewd business people. I trust they have the foresight to factor in possible outcomes to different business approaches.

 

That said, some meatball fans may stay away next year. New fans may also take their places. This is not the same scenario as the end of last year. Not by any stretch. Cubs fans are very intelligent and informed (for the most part). With a new team/ ballpark/ and brand on the rise, I think people will come out. I know I certainly will.

 

Are you flat out ignoring the post that started this discussion? He made presumptions about what he thought would happen including how the major league roster would be constructed. So those are the guidelines being used to construct the 2012 or 2013 roster.

 

Sure payroll will likely drop to counter the revenue dropping. But in order to make a big free agent acquisition in the future, a scenario you don't dismiss, ownership will likely have to make a leap of faith and increase payroll over the revenue that is being collected.

 

I certainly agree that the Ricketts are shrewd business people and I agree that they have considered all of these factors and have all sorts of what-if forecasts. Most teams are owned by such people. However, we aren't talking profitability here. We are talking about building a championship contending baseball team. I don't think that the Tribune Company probably ever took a loss via the Cubs but that didn't get the Cubs to a World Series.

 

Pretty much, yeah.

[Guest]

Brett updates on Cespedes/Soler

 

But the list of teams pursuing him the most aggressively may not include two of the big boys, the Yankees and Red Sox. This, according to Danny Knobler, who says neither team is expected to be heavily involved. Knobler adds that there is a divide in the Marlins’ front office about how heavily to pursue Cespedes. That could leave the Cubs as one of the outfielder’s primary suitors – but, keep in mind, there may be as many as a dozen teams that make an offer.

 

Knobler adds that 19-year-old Cuban prospect Jorge Soler continues to draw plenty of interest (he, too, is awaiting the official grant of free agency), including from the Cubs. Unlike Cespedes, however, I don’t necessarily expect Soler, who is a true prospect rather than a potential 2012 contributor, to sign right away upon reaching free agency. So long as he’s signed before the middle of the summer, his signing doesn’t count against the soon-to-be-imposed international spending limits. In other words, while he may not sign right away, he’ll sign at some point in the coming months, lest he see his bonus check reduced tenfold.

 

If Cubs plan to put all baseball revenue back into the organization, there is still a great deal of money available to spend in 2012. From the hip estimates of (1) revenue that will exceed $200 million, (2) a payroll that currently stands at $95ish million, (3) organizational/operational expenses approaching $20 million, and (4) draft and international spending effectively capped at $15 million, say there’s upwards of $70ish million left to spend. Even if a large chunk of those remaining dollars go to debt service payment/principal payment (the McDonald’s purchase was by the Ricketts family entity, rather than by the Cubs), there’s still a ton of money available to be spent on adding players to the organization.

 

If that money isn’t going to go to free agents like Prince Fielder or Edwin Jackson, it’s fair to guess that the Cubs will bid healthily on guys like Cespedes and Soler, who, incidentally, could both help with that whole “future” thing.

 

More at link. Hope I didn't post too much of it.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/27/the-latest-on-cuban-outfielders-yoenis-cespedes-and-jorge-soler/

[Conky]

This is great news if true. Not sure if I trust the Cahman's and Cherington's of the world, but if they are going to take a back seat on this one, all the better. Looks like these guys are Epstein and Hoyer's targets for this off-season. They certainly have the money to outbid everyone. Whether they pull the trigger or not remains to be seen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think he's way overestimating there. Or more specifically, he's underestimating what gets filed under "organizational/operating expenses" by tens of millions of dollars.

[Brett]

I think he's way overestimating there. Or more specifically, he's underestimating what gets filed under "organizational/operating expenses" by tens of millions of dollars.

 

Could well be. It was an extremely rough estimate, and one that was a bit tough to make considering the massive changes in those expenses since last year. It depends on what you consider organizational/operating expenses, but, you're right, I'm probably on the low side.

 

The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

[Guest]

Because in the post-George Steinbrenner era, the money simply doesn’t flow as freely (or recklessly) as it once did.

 

“The days of waking up on Christmas morning and finding an expensive new toy under the tree are over,” said one senior official. “We’re trying to be smarter about how we spend.”

 

There are two factors in play here. The first has to do with Hal Steinbrenner’s desire to save money, as opposed to his father, George, who funneled most of the Yankees’ profits back into the payroll. Peel away the layers of Yankees rhetoric, and what the younger Steinbrenner wants is to make money and win championships. In that order.

 

...“You’re looking at probably the best team in baseball since 2010, and they couldn’t even win their own league,” said the Yankee insider, referring to the Phillies’ back-to-back defeats in the National League playoffs. “It makes you re-think.”

 

...Starting in 2013, the top 15 franchises will no longer be eligible for handouts. That means instead of cash flowing into the coffers of, say, the Blue Jays and Nationals — both of whom are on the list of 15 — the money will be returned to the payers in proportion to how much they’d been putting in.

 

“There’s just too much (rebate) money on the table to ignore,” said one major league official. “I think we’ve seen the last of the Yankees spending $210 million a year.”

 

http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/yanks_end_days_of_splurging_on_talent/8969113

[Guest]

Because in the post-George Steinbrenner era, the money simply doesn’t flow as freely (or recklessly) as it once did.

 

“The days of waking up on Christmas morning and finding an expensive new toy under the tree are over,” said one senior official. “We’re trying to be smarter about how we spend.”

 

There are two factors in play here. The first has to do with Hal Steinbrenner’s desire to save money, as opposed to his father, George, who funneled most of the Yankees’ profits back into the payroll. Peel away the layers of Yankees rhetoric, and what the younger Steinbrenner wants is to make money and win championships. In that order.

 

...“You’re looking at probably the best team in baseball since 2010, and they couldn’t even win their own league,” said the Yankee insider, referring to the Phillies’ back-to-back defeats in the National League playoffs. “It makes you re-think.”

 

...Starting in 2013, the top 15 franchises will no longer be eligible for handouts. That means instead of cash flowing into the coffers of, say, the Blue Jays and Nationals — both of whom are on the list of 15 — the money will be returned to the payers in proportion to how much they’d been putting in.

 

“There’s just too much (rebate) money on the table to ignore,” said one major league official. “I think we’ve seen the last of the Yankees spending $210 million a year.”

 

http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/yanks_end_days_of_splurging_on_talent/8969113

Hal Steinbrenner is sort of a weirdo and perhaps may be on the Autism spectrum. In any event he's more of a moma's boy and is very unlike his father in almost all respects.

 

EDIT: Judging from what is happening to the Cubs I'd say the Ricketts family priorities are also in-line with Hals

[Tracer Bullet]

Seriously?

[ctcf]

Seriously?

[LeftCoastCubFan]

The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

The Cubs did not "clear" 250 mil. They did have 258 mil in revenues. But 157 mil in player expenses. Add other expenses and they "cleared" 23 mil pre-tax. The Rickets likely can spend, but the numbers you use say the opposite.

[Magnetic Curses]

The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

The Cubs did not "clear" 250 mil. They did have 258 mil in revenues. But 157 mil in player expenses. Add other expenses and they "cleared" 23 mil pre-tax. The Rickets likely can spend, but the numbers you use say the opposite.

 

 

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

[CUBZ99]

The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

The Cubs did not "clear" 250 mil. They did have 258 mil in revenues. But 157 mil in player expenses. Add other expenses and they "cleared" 23 mil pre-tax. The Rickets likely can spend, but the numbers you use say the opposite.

 

 

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

 

and that was with a losing team. So far with Theo on board it looks like the team is going to make another $30MM or whatever he saves on payroll. Sad that fans will pay for such a crappy product.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

I feel like I'm at an Occupy rally. There are a dozen teams that had a higher profit than the Cubs, including the Dodgers, Pirates, and Padres. If you had 700 mil to invest where would you put it? They would have made more than 23 mil if they invested it in T-Bills. I didn't know the Cubs were a charity.

[davell]

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

I feel like I'm at an Occupy rally. There are a dozen teams that had a higher profit than the Cubs, including the Dodgers, Pirates, and Padres. If you had 700 mil to invest where would you put it? They would have made more than 23 mil if they invested it in T-Bills. I didn't know the Cubs were a charity.

The Cubs aren't a charity whatsoever, but when the owners have came out and said that the profits would be put directly back into the team, people tend to take them at their word. Personally, I thought it was a mistake for Ricketts to say that.

[Magnetic Curses]

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

I feel like I'm at an Occupy rally. There are a dozen teams that had a higher profit than the Cubs, including the Dodgers, Pirates, and Padres. If you had 700 mil to invest where would you put it? They would have made more than 23 mil if they invested it in T-Bills. I didn't know the Cubs were a charity.

 

i asked you a question

[javy knows my name]

if they're making 23 million over total operating expenses, that makes them one of the most financially successful franchises in MLB. if they can pump 20 million of that surplus revenue back into payroll, that puts it at 177 mil. what's payroll for 2012 at right now?

 

the fact that he chose the wrong word there doesn't negate his actual point.

I feel like I'm at an Occupy rally. There are a dozen teams that had a higher profit than the Cubs, including the Dodgers, Pirates, and Padres. If you had 700 mil to invest where would you put it? They would have made more than 23 mil if they invested it in T-Bills. I didn't know the Cubs were a charity.

 

Try as I might, I can't figure out just what the hell this means. Is that just another place where you'd feel out of touch and unpopular? I guess I can buy that.

[Magnetic Curses]

http://cl.ly/Aexs/old_man_yells_at_cloud.jpg

[UMFan83]

Come on, no need to bring Fred into this.

[Tracer Bullet]

The overall point, however, stands, particularly when considering how VERY conservative I was on the revenue side (the Cubs cleared $250 million in revenue in 2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html)). The money is there to spend, and there are only so many places it can be spent. Cespedes and Soler, at this point, make as much sense as any other place.

The Cubs did not "clear" 250 mil. They did have 258 mil in revenues. But 157 mil in player expenses. Add other expenses and they "cleared" 23 mil pre-tax. The Rickets likely can spend, but the numbers you use say the opposite.

 

He didn't say profit. His statement was accurate.

[Splendid Splinter]

The Cubs aren't a charity whatsoever, but when the owners have came out and said that the profits would be put directly back into the team, people tend to take them at their word. Personally, I thought it was a mistake for Ricketts to say that.

 

 

No it wasn't a mistake. It probably is being put back into the team. He didn't say it would go to "only" MLB payroll. When he said it, I took it as he was putting it back into anything that's Cubs related. It could be towards the maintenance of the stadium, hiring more employees in the organization, IFA/draft budget, international development/buildings, etc.... When he says things about the "team", I'm thinking he actually means the whole Cubs organization (like a businessman would say about a "team") instead of something specific/literal like the actual MLB team that most people would think of.

[Backtobanks]

And let's not forget that the owners get a tax write off on everything under the sun to add to their profits. These guys are smart, successful business men and none of them are losing money. That's why there's always lots of interest when a sports franchise goes up for sale.

[ScrubMD]

And let's not forget that the owners get a tax write off on everything under the sun to add to their profits. These guys are smart, successful business men and none of them are losing money. That's why there's always lots of interest when a sports franchise goes up for sale.

 

If someone's just looking for profit, there are much much better ways than a sports franchise. They do make money, but for these mega-rich guys, owning a team is more a bucket list type thing.

[wade]

When talking franchise profit or loss, I've always thought the likely appreciation of the franchise should be included in the discussion as well. Even with McCourt running the organization into the ground, the Dodgers franchise (and included property) is worth way more now than we he bought it.