The Ricketts Ownership

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Are we getting full price for all those tix? Aren't season tix and partial season tix at something of a discount? Or is that figured into the average?

 

That's getting into some complex calculations. I'll just trust Forbes.

[SouthSideRyan]

I got the pleasure of learning this year that no, season tickets are not discounted

[Tracer Bullet]

Fans that question Theo aren't eligible for the discount.

[Cubswin11]

I got the pleasure of learning this year that no, season tickets are not discounted

You must mean you own rooftop season tickets

[SouthSideRyan]

Kyle was that 3rd in revenue solely for ticket sales or was that total revenue?

 

Total revenue. It is, however, an estimate because the books are not open.

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_d5_

 

Then all this talk about woe is us we can't put up enough ads on our scoreboard and we're getting screwed on tv deals has nothing to do with why we're suddenly a mid-market team.

 

My whole point is that I don't buy that we're #3 in total revenue given those facts.

 

Is our advantage in attendance/ticket prices so great that we're overcoming this huge edge that so many other teams have on us?

 

How badly do you think Forbes fucked up the calculation? We're 13th in payroll by BR's estimator

 

These are BR's payroll estimates for opening day:

 

LAD $217.2M

NYY $211.6M

PHI $157.9M

BOS $151.7M

LAA $149.6M

DET $148.5M

SFG $140.0M

TEX $121.5M

CHW $120.4M

TOR $114.8M

WSN $111.7M

STL $111.7M

CHC $102.0M

CIN $98.5M

NYM $90.0M

BAL $88.2M

ATL $87.3M

SEA $83.9M

ARI $83.0M

CLE $80.9M

KCR $79.3M

MIN $78.8M

MIL $73.4M

COL $73.2M

SDP $63.1M

PIT $60.8M

OAK $60.7M

TBR $59.9M

MIA $45.5M

HOU $25.7M

 

Going to have to explain to me why the difference between Philly and us is greater than the difference between us and everybody but the [expletive] Marlins and the worst MLB team ever assembled.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's a lot of mediocre Cuban pitching prospects to buy out there. Gotta save up.

[SouthSideRyan]

The White Sox drew 900,000 less with cheaper tickets, looking at ~54M less in ticket revenue and they have a 20M payroll advantage. That's embarrassing.

 

ETA: They have make ~52M less in overall revenue according to Forbes estimates.

[Tracer Bullet]

Kyle was that 3rd in revenue solely for ticket sales or was that total revenue?

 

Total revenue. It is, however, an estimate because the books are not open.

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_d5_

 

Then all this talk about woe is us we can't put up enough ads on our scoreboard and we're getting screwed on tv deals has nothing to do with why we're suddenly a mid-market team.

 

My whole point is that I don't buy that we're #3 in total revenue given those facts.

 

Is our advantage in attendance/ticket prices so great that we're overcoming this huge edge that so many other teams have on us?

 

How badly do you think Forbes [expletive] up the calculation? We're 13th in payroll by BR's estimator

 

These are BR's payroll estimates for opening day:

 

LAD $217.2M

NYY $211.6M

PHI $157.9M

BOS $151.7M

LAA $149.6M

DET $148.5M

SFG $140.0M

TEX $121.5M

CHW $120.4M

TOR $114.8M

WSN $111.7M

STL $111.7M

CHC $102.0M

CIN $98.5M

NYM $90.0M

BAL $88.2M

ATL $87.3M

SEA $83.9M

ARI $83.0M

CLE $80.9M

KCR $79.3M

MIN $78.8M

MIL $73.4M

COL $73.2M

SDP $63.1M

PIT $60.8M

OAK $60.7M

TBR $59.9M

MIA $45.5M

HOU $25.7M

 

Going to have to explain to me why the difference between Philly and us is greater than the difference between us and everybody but the [expletive] Marlins and the worst MLB team ever assembled.

 

We don't have to pay Ryan Howard $20m?

 

ETA - or Michael Young and Chase Utley $30m combined.

 

I'm 100% ok with saving several million in years that we aren't going to be close. I don't care if we spend $100m or $80m this year. If our payroll is $80m in 2015, then I'll be pissed.

[Guest]

Kyle was that 3rd in revenue solely for ticket sales or was that total revenue?

 

Total revenue. It is, however, an estimate because the books are not open.

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_d5_

 

Then all this talk about woe is us we can't put up enough ads on our scoreboard and we're getting screwed on tv deals has nothing to do with why we're suddenly a mid-market team.

 

My whole point is that I don't buy that we're #3 in total revenue given those facts.

 

Is our advantage in attendance/ticket prices so great that we're overcoming this huge edge that so many other teams have on us?

 

How badly do you think Forbes [expletive] up the calculation? We're 13th in payroll by BR's estimator

 

These are BR's payroll estimates for opening day:

 

LAD $217.2M

NYY $211.6M

PHI $157.9M

BOS $151.7M

LAA $149.6M

DET $148.5M

SFG $140.0M

TEX $121.5M

CHW $120.4M

TOR $114.8M

WSN $111.7M

STL $111.7M

CHC $102.0M

CIN $98.5M

NYM $90.0M

BAL $88.2M

ATL $87.3M

SEA $83.9M

ARI $83.0M

CLE $80.9M

KCR $79.3M

MIN $78.8M

MIL $73.4M

COL $73.2M

SDP $63.1M

PIT $60.8M

OAK $60.7M

TBR $59.9M

MIA $45.5M

HOU $25.7M

 

Going to have to explain to me why the difference between Philly and us is greater than the difference between us and everybody but the [expletive] Marlins and the worst MLB team ever assembled.

 

FWIW, the Forbes thing Kyle cited is from 2011 and those payroll numbers are from 2013, right?

 

I think we're going to be a good amount lower than 3rd in 2013. I guess we'll see.

[SouthSideRyan]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

[Sosa21MVP]

I voted for option #2 simply because I did want Cuban to buy the team.

[Tracer Bullet]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage.

 

I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time.

[Guest]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number).

[SouthSideRyan]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number).

 

Are any TV deals starting this season other than the Astros? (Nevermind that I still fail to see why our 2014 money is untouchable until the ink is on the contract)

 

And that still doesn't explain why payroll is dropping AGAIN

[SouthSideRyan]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage.

 

I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time.

 

Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time.

[Guest]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number).

 

Are any TV deals starting this season other than the Astros? (Nevermind that I still fail to see why our 2014 money is untouchable until the ink is on the contract)

 

And that still doesn't explain why payroll is dropping AGAIN

 

I'm not really sure... I feel like there have been a few that have gone/will be going into effect since that ranking was published (spring 2011?), but I have nothing to base that on.

[Tracer Bullet]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage.

 

I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time.

 

Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time.

 

This kyle imitation is getting scary. Probably time to crawl out of his character before you get stuck that way.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is it just me or are the former top prospects and injury reclamations having a really, really low success rate?

 

We got something out of Paul Maholm, but that's about it, right?

[SouthSideRyan]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

I'm suggesting their ranking will drop due to TV money seemingly everywhere, not necessarily the revenue figure itself (I realize that doesn't explain the payroll number dropping...but then, that wasn't necessarily a sustainable payroll number).

 

Are any TV deals starting this season other than the Astros? (Nevermind that I still fail to see why our 2014 money is untouchable until the ink is on the contract)

 

And that still doesn't explain why payroll is dropping AGAIN

 

I'm not really sure... I feel like there have been a few that have gone/will be going into effect since that ranking was published (spring 2011?), but I have nothing to base that on.

 

The ranking was published in Spring 2012. The article itself discusses the TV deals and only mentions the Astros new deal.

 

This fangraphs article was posted here awhile back, there's nobody but the Astros starting new deals.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

[WrigleyField 22]

I guess I don't really even understand the true question behind this poll?

 

Do I think Ricketts have done a good job?

Yes

 

Do I wish someone else had bought the team?

Uh, I guess. Since its a wish I can be totally unrealistic about it like when I wish for a billion dollars. Realistically speaking though there wasn't another bidder that I think I'd take a chance at over Ricketts if I could do it again. Maybe Cuban (even though he wasn't a realistic option either), but honestly his biggest advantage is his willingness to sink his own money into teams, and everything else may as well be a toss up, which means it could be worse just as easily as it could be equal or better. I wish a lot of things, but at this point I have no reason to question that a Ricketts based ownership was the best option available.

[SouthSideRyan]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage.

 

I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time.

 

Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time.

 

This kyle imitation is getting scary. Probably time to crawl out of his character before you get stuck that way.

 

I wonder how your posts would look lined up side by side with davearm from November 2011. The 18 months ago selves of you pro-tankers would be slapping the [expletive] out of your current selves.

[Tracer Bullet]

It looks like the revenue numbers were from the 2011 season. If the Cubs revenue dropped it's because they didn't try to be a good baseball team, so I'm not sure why they should be excused for that.

 

GR, are you saying you would've been fine if the Cubs didn't sign Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, or Baker this offseason? Are we back to the lose 110 games a seaosn until you spend 80M in one offseason plan?

 

No. I was being somewhat facetious. I don't really care where we rank in payroll right now. I like the idea of adding bargains and former top prospects and guys coming off injury, etc. You get the inside track to resign them if they pan out or flip them for future value. Whether those players add up to $85m or $102m isn't significant to me at this stage.

 

I think looking purely at revenue from 2 years ago v payroll today is unfair. I don't think we could add $150m to be in the top 2. And spending another $50m to catch the Phillies wasn't going to make us a strong contender and risked saddling us with bad contracts. There's a time when having a bad contract or two to get a top tier player is fine. When you're finishing with maybe 75 wins is not that time.

 

Signing nothing but reclamations and bargains is a good way to ensure your team sucks for a long long time.

 

This kyle imitation is getting scary. Probably time to crawl out of his character before you get stuck that way.

 

I wonder how your posts would look lined up side by side with davearm from November 2011. The 18 months ago selves of you pro-tankers would be slapping the [expletive] out of your current selves.

 

How much money would we have to spend to realistically contend this year? Do we have that money? Who would we spend it on (or should have spent it on)? How would that impact our ability to spend when some of the kids are ready to contribute? What assets could we not add bc we aren't selling off pieces with no future here?

 

The answers to those questions lead me to prefer tanking in 2013 than spending an additional $50m to hope we get a WC. I don't know what exactly my posts said in 2011. I know I have a better idea of how fucked this organization was now than I did when Hendry was running it (and I was very much for firing Hendry well before it happened).

[SouthSideRyan]

And when we win 65 games this year, should we try in in 2014?

[Tracer Bullet]

Try what?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Try what?

 

Well, that pretty much sums up Cubs fandom.