Sammy Sofa

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.

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.

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

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.

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: Good luck.

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.

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.

Are you talking about the situation in general or what he said in the article?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Oh, is that what it is? This is getting pretty crazy. Plus I trumped you with your crazy ticket sales uber alles thesis.

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?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_rank.html Haha that list proves the point. The most profitable teams are the Nationals and Padres. Check some of the teams near the bottom. Not spending isn't the automatic moneymaker you're assuming it is. Plus the Nationals are spending close to $90 million dollars.

Right. The owners that run their teams with the bottom line as the top priority are usually the owners that fans come to despise, because profit-maximization and win-maximization are not objectives that align particularly well. Jeffery Loria and Carl Pohlad come to mind. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_rank.html

If the Cubs sign Pujols and don't increase the overall payroll, how much has their overall cost increased by signing Pujols? You're looking at this incorrectly. It's not a matter of Pujols making his personal cost and then some for him to generate revenue for the team. If the Cubs sign Pujols and stay within this year's payroll (~$130 mil), then their cost has not increased at all. If their revenue then increases by, say, $10 million over this year's then they're making a profit of $10 million from one season to the next. If Pujols is the primary offseason acquisition, then it's safe to assume he's the primary reason they're making more money in 2012 than they made in 2011 - that means Pujols has made the team money. Now, if the team bumped payroll up to ~$160 million next year in order to sign Pujols, then he'd have to generate them $30 million just to break even financially on his deal. If overall cost doesn't change, however, then any increase in revenue is pure profit and Pujols would be the primary catalyst for that increase - thus he's making the team money. 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. So in no way will you consider declining ticket sales/attendance and the difference in money made between teams that make the playoffs consistently and those that do not?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_rank.html

But based on your own argument tract here they only they'd turn a bigger profit is if they don't spend the money they would have spent on him, which they will almost certainly do. Of course, even then the idea of this kind of "profit" is based off of your faulty ticket projections and apparently the misunderstanding that the Cubs are anywhere near spending more than they take in.

No, apparently nothing increases the value or the money made by a franchise if a player cannot generate enough increased ticket sales to offset their salary.

Fascinating.

Well at least you realize when you're confused. I don't believe either of those things, nor have I said anything to suggest I do. In the end I guess your concept of making money just differs from mine. To me, you're making money when your revenues exceed your costs. You've got some other idea, apparently, since you contend the Cubs would be "making money" paying Pujols $30M but realizing marginal revenues of $10-$15M. I'm confused because you keep talking like the Cubs' costs exceed what they make. Or that they would if they signed Pujols to $30 million a year. That's a nonsensical position to take. And once again, your projected "marginal revenues" are faulty and based on the idea that the Cubs will continue to average around 3.1 million tickets sold in the regular season for the foreseeable future (or that they'll even sell 3.1 million tickets this year) without significant improvement to the team.

Right. I think he's convinced that I was saying that Pujols would effectively pay his own salary through some kind of quantifiable change in merchandise or ticket sales based specifically on him. What I, and pretty much everyone else, has been saying is that Pujols will make the team better and more popular, and a better and more popular Cubs team makes more money than when they're not very good and with a collection of rather motley veterans (except you, Starlin; your shining light brings a nation hope).