Sammy Sofa

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).

Plus the better plays know how to work that with the refs. Wade is an absolutely [expletive] master at working the refs (and I'm not slamming him for it), and that's going to be something that Rose needs to figure out if he expects to get the same kind of treatment as a star outside of the cursory "there was a flurry of action so he gets the benefit of the doubt...usually" call.

The Cubs' payroll is not overtaking the money they make, even if they added Pujols' asking price to the current payroll. It would definitely narrow the gap, and they really don't need to be spending $180 million a year, but let's be realistic here. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html I will it say it yet again: this is very confusing. davearm seems to honestly believe that a player's cost needs to be offset by an increase in ticket sales. He also seems to think that regular season ticket sales are the only way a team can make money.

This is still really confusing. I just explained as plainly as possible as how I think he would make the Cubs more money than they're making now. I really don't know how else I can break it down. And I can't help it if you're taking what I said in extreme ways I never meant. To you a "walking moneymaker" is apparently someone who is somehow farting out money. To me it's an impact player who is going to make the Cubs take in significantly more money than they are now. Like it's been pointed out, it's not like the Cubs wouldn't spend the Pujols money on other players, so the issue is whether or not it's spent on players that are going to significantly make the team better and thusly draw in more fans. It's not like the money is somehow spent "more" on Pujols.

Shhhh. This all makes sense in his head. Trust him.

No idea. If he is then he WAS rockin' it.

I feel like they are our big market clone. Lots of high priced aging talent. Except they have Reyes and Wright and we have Castro and....Brett Jackson? Oh and also they are broke and we are just frugal (for now). They've also got Davis and Beltran rockin' it.

Right. It's not an issue of "does this player make back his salary?!?!" It's an issue of "does this player make the team better AND thusly makes people spend money on the Cubs?"

Yeah, it's definitely more than a bit worrisome at this point.

So what moves are you assuming/hoping they would make that would keep them at those levels? The 3.1 average since 2003 was based out of having competitive teams in 2004, 2007 and 2008. Once you get a couple season away from those types of season things start to drop. You saw that in the number of people actually showing up in 2006 and 2010 and now without a bounceback year like they had in 2007 you're seeing the result of fielding a mediocre team for several seasons. If they continue to field a mediocre at best team? Of course. What you're seeing now is the trend that was very visible in 2006 but was curtailed by their success in 2007. Yes, they sold over 3.1 tickets; but nowhere near that number was ultimately showing up over the last 2+ months. This is the same thing we saw last year, where again they sold over 3.1 million...and now they're projected to sell 2.6-2.7 million. I have little doubt that you'd see continued similar sales, or worse, if the team doesn't becomes significantly better. That said, you seem to be now steering this towards the idea that I've been saying that the Cubs HAVE to sign Pujols or they're doomed. I'm not saying that. Signing Fielder and Reyes would no doubt provide similar renewed interest/enthusiasm in regards to attendance. Pujols isn't the "only answer." If he produces at a typical Pujols-level (though the first year alone would of course see a huge surge sight unseen)? Yes, I have little doubt that you'd see the numbers rebound by 600,000-700,000. He is not, however, the only option that would get people buying more tickets. Again, you're forcing this weird parameters that nobody is suggesting. I never said it's an all or nothing option in regards to signing Pujols. What I'm saying is that if the Cubs want to see their ticket sales to bounce back and consistently stay at the top of what they can sell they need to field a team that is a perennial playoff contender, and they have options in this coming FA class that could very easily put them right back in that position. I never said it would be a permanent drop in ticket sales if they don't sign some big FA's this offseason; that would be a crazy suggestion. What I'm saying is that they'll see lowered and lowering sales so long as they field a mediocre or worse team. If they can change that, they change their ticket sales. Simple.

And, yet again, your conclusion is based off of the faulty idea that the Cubs are going to sell 3.1 million tickets this year. Even if this was some kind of weird situation where Pujols' salary had to be offset by ticket revenue (once more, it doesn't have to since the Cubs are already running at a substantial profit), you're underestimating how much the Cubs can increase their ticket/food/drink revenue with a good offseason (actually increasing from around 2.6 million and not 3.1 million). If you're so adamant that his salary has to be offset by ticket revenue, then look at it accurately: let's say they're able to to boost fan interest by having a great offseason that includes Pujols. The Cubs go back to selling 3.3 million tickets a season. Let's use that $50 a head average again (actual annual average cost: $52.56). So a boost of approx. 700,000 more tickets sold for the season. 700,000 x 50 = $35,000,000. And that's using a lower average, not factoring in increased food/drink revenue, potential playoff money and whatever increase would come across baseball with the bump in Pujols merchandise (probably pretty minimal).

The Cubs are selling around 2.6 million tickets this year. Signing Pujols would make them sell a lot more tickets. Pujols' salary doesn't have to be offset by the ticket sales for the Cubs to make money since the Cubs are already a very profitable team; he would make them MORE profitable, due to increased ticket sales, due to making the playoffs and (on a smaller scale) due to increased merchandise sales (yes, those are split around baseball, but imagine how many Pujols jerseys and the like will be sold to the very, very large Cubs fanbase. Yes, not a huge bump, but hey, more money is more money). You're approaching this like the Cubs are operating at a loss. They're obviously not, and obviously signing Pujols would result in them making more money than they are now.

Changes to a swing/stance are pretty critical. Not sure what else you think is going on if you don't think he's cheating.

Yeah, I said it only in half-jest when I brought up how The Hug might have saved Hendry's job for another season no matter how bad the team gets this year.

Because Garza is likely only to miss this start and they have an off-day tomorrow.

Hey, I don't want an 8-year-deal for Fielder, either. But ultimately I don't want the Cubs passing on both players.