davearm2

Fangraphs and the like computes player value based upon the premise that the cost to purchase wins on the free agent market is like $4M or $5M per win. So if a guy is a 3-win player, he should command $12-15M on the open market. None of what they do tries to quantify player value in terms of revenue generation. Lilly was a bargain at $10M a year under Fangraphs' interpretation of player value. He didn't make the Cubs more profitable however, for the very reason you indicate: he didn't generate revenue to match his salary. And neither would Pujols. So I'll say it yet again. If you want Pujols because he'll make the Cubs better, have at it. If you want Pujols because he'll improve the bottom line, guess again.

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.

And I explained as plainly as possible why you're wrong. You're not making money when your cost (salary) exceeds the revenue you generate.

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?" When you toss around phrases like "walking moneymaker" and "will make the Cubs a lot more money" etc. etc., the implication is clearly the former, plus much more. How could the guy be a walking moneymaker if he isn't even earning back his salary? It's nonsensical.

My conclusion is based off of an assumption that the Cubs would draw about as many fans over the next 10 years without Pujols as they have averaged over the last ten years without Pujols. That number is 3.06M per year. I rounded to 3.1. Is it your contention that the Cubs' annual attendance will average 2.6M fans over the span of Pujols' contract, if he signs elsewhere? And further that Pujols alone will increase that number by 700K every year, to 3.3M, if he signs here? So it's a permanent return to the '90s without, and ten straight years of 2008 with? C'mon. Don't be ridiculous.

The first paragraph is misguided. There are obviously a whole lot of other corresponding roster moves going on at the same time that clouds the conclusion. If you're telling me the Cubs could add Pujols, keep payroll the same, and increase profits by $5M, then my next question is, what would profits look like if they made all the same roster moves but didn't sign Pujols, and had a payroll $30M lower? They're going to increase by more than that $5M. The second paragraph I can agree with. The reason to sign Pujols is to increase your chances of winning. It's not to improve the bottom line.

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. You do understand that the definition of profit is revenue - expenses, correct? The expense half of the equation is set at ~$30M. I'm still waiting for you to explain how marginal revenue from signing Pujols is going to exceed $30M. I've already shown that a realistic estimate is about a half to a third of that.

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out. Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so. So he WOULDN'T make the Cubs a lot of money? I'm confused. Your own post was breaking down how even increased ticket revenue of just 200,000 would bring in that much more money. We're talking about even more since the Cubs' attendance is down even further from the 2010 numbers you're using. Though it's all moot since you seem to be hinging this one some kind of idea that if Pujols' salary can't be justified by increased attendance revenue then it's a bust instead of the reality that the Cubs can easily afford even his desired contract. I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you. $30M > $10M. Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true. Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser. I'm still confused. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that increased tickets sales should or need to offset Pujols' salary, or why you're thinking anyone here said that. Besides, aren't you basing this tangent on the idea of the Cubs selling 3.1 million tickets this year? You've said repeatedly that Pujols would make the Cubs a lot of money. How exactly do you figure the guy's going to make the Cubs a lot of money if the added revenue he generates isn't even enough to offset his salary? Doesn't exactly take a CPA to see the flaw in that logic.

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out. Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so. So he WOULDN'T make the Cubs a lot of money? I'm confused. Your own post was breaking down how even increased ticket revenue of just 200,000 would bring in that much more money. We're talking about even more since the Cubs' attendance is down even further from the 2010 numbers you're using. Though it's all moot since you seem to be hinging this one some kind of idea that if Pujols' salary can't be justified by increased attendance revenue then it's a bust instead of the reality that the Cubs can easily afford even his desired contract. I understand you're confused, so I'll try to make it as simple as I can for you. $30M > $10M. Both are a lot of money, though -- that much is true. Look if you want Pujols on the Cubs because he'd make them better, then fine. But just leave it at that. The business case for signing the guy is a total loser.

I could totally see Teixeira in LF for the Yankees on opening day, if they decide they want in on Pujols.

You would only consider revising your theory if you were capable of reading and digesting the analysis I just laid out. Otherwise, I suppose you wouldn't. You'd probably just keep repeating things like "Pujols would make the Cubs a lot more money", as if saying it enough times will make it so.

None will be better. All will be cheaper. To me it just reeks of paying for past production. There's no question the guy's been unbelievable. I'd much rather be in the Cards' shoes, saying so long, we'll miss you... and then watching as his salary:production ratio flips completely from black to red.

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

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Yeah it's probably going to be worse. Based on what? The Cubs make a ton of money. Pujols would lead to the Cubs making even more money. Why do you assume the payroll would actually go DOWN from what it is now if they signed him? Again, the Cubs' current payroll limitations are due primarily to the proximity to the sale. Each year away from that coupled with a walking moneymaker like Pujols makes the payroll actually going UP a distinct possibility. Pujols is not a "walking moneymaker". They're not going to make more in licensed merchandise. They're not going to make more in tv/radio broadcast rights. They're not going to make more in corporate sponsorships. They might see a little blip in attendance the first year or two, but it'd probably be temporary.

First of all, we don't know that whatever Pujols would get from the Cubs would actually be a sixth of their payroll. For all we know the money that having Pujols would bring in would make the Ricketts willing to spend a payroll of $150+ million. Again, the Cubs are a team that can deal with big contracts. Yeah it's probably going to be worse. Paying Pujols *only* 1/6th of the Cubs' payroll is the absolute best-case scenario. $25M out of $150M, roughly. He could make up closer to 1/4th of the payroll actually -- $30M out of $120M wouldn't be out of the question. At any rate, thinking you could get by for less than 1/6th is not being realistic.

What if we all said we didn't either? Then it'd be unanimous that where the line has been drawn is wrong. That surely does not lead to a conclusion that there shouldn't be a line at all.

Of course not.

Why should you care at all? I've never understood that there is absolutely zero problem in perception with people taking all sorts of powders and pills and supplements in order to get stronger, but when we cross into the arbitrary "steroid" classification, suddenly guys are just popping pills that make them into the Hulk. As if the guys who don't take steroids are doing nothing but calisthenics in order to get stronger or something. It's completely nonsensical. Curious to hear your opinion on speed limits. After all, it can't really be argued that 64 MPH is safe, but 66 MPH is dangerous and criminal. That would seem to fall in the completely nonsensical category too. But yet nobody seems to disagree that a line has to be drawn someplace, since 130 MPH clearly is dangerous and criminal. The PED topic is fundamentally the same.

Am I crazy or doesn't Berkman hit lefty most of the time? Has he dropped switch hitting and I didn't notice it? The only strictly right handed option Hendry had this offseason was Konerko and he wasn't really an option at all. Derrek Lee says hello A lot of people do. It's polite. Hello

Am I crazy or doesn't Berkman hit lefty most of the time? Has he dropped switch hitting and I didn't notice it? The only strictly right handed option Hendry had this offseason was Konerko and he wasn't really an option at all. Derrek Lee says hello

The point I'm making is that the Ricketts haven't done anything to justify your "make money without having an elite team" comment. If the ticket prices and promotions turn you off, that's cool, but it's not indicative of ownership/organization not striving for an elite team. It's the opposite actually.

That"s what kills me. I've never seen someone wearing a "Busch Stadium" shirt. You brought up the average fan angle before. Are we more dedicated fans just supposed to acquiesce? People are going to do what they want. If you don't want to support the product on the field then don't. Personally, I haven't been to a game since April of '09 despite living 10 minutes away from Wrigley because of my frustration with the team. I also can't think of any Cubs merchandise I've bought in that time, either. I'm not saying this to brag or boast; it's simply been my response to an underwhelming team. I'm not going to fault people who are spending their money on Cubs' gear and tickets and so on. I also can't really fault the Cubs organization for courting/"exploiting" casual fans of the Cubs/Wrigley; yeah, there's the competitive aspect, but it's also a business. If they've found an avenue that enables them to make money without having an elite team I can't really fault them for generally following that path. I don't agree with it and it frustrates me and I'll respond by closing my wallet to them, but that's just me. They're not generally following that path though. The Cubs' payroll is at or near the top of the NL. Obviously the results (wins) haven't been there, but it's surely not because of a lack of financial commitment from ownership. The fact is, the Ricketts seem intent on capitalizing on the inherent popularity the Cubs and Wrigley have with casual fans, AND putting a winner on the field. There's no reason they're mutually exclusive options.

Phew. Glad it's nothing to worry about.

You guys need to lighten up.

There's something wrong with being contrarian all the time. Between the dubious arguments, head-scratching opinions, and obnoxious personalities (especially the obnoxious personalities), there's just so much to set straight ;)