LeftCoastCubFan

Ooops :oops: Corrected

Baseball the game has not really been saved yet, only the business of baseball has. Just take a look at total baseball attendance (figures from BallparksOfBaseball.com): 1988 – 53.0 mil 1989 – 55.1 1990 – 54.8 1991 – 56.8 1992 – 55.6 1993 – 70.3 (Florida and Colorado expansion) 1994 – 50.0 (only 114 games played equates to 71.0 if a full season played) 1995 – 50.5 (only 143 games played equates to 57.0 if a full season played) (Wild Card Added) 1996 – 60.1 1997 – 62.9 (Interleague play begins) 1998 – 70.6 (Arizona and Tampa expansion) 1999 – 70.1 2000 – 72.7 2001 – 72.6 2002 – 68.0 2003 – 67.6 2004 – 73.0 2005 – 74.5 First take a look at the spike in attendance in ’93 of 14.7 million in attendance in the year before the strike. 7.5 mil was due to the new expansion teams. 6 mil in increases was due to unique circumstances where the Yankees, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Mariners, Tigers, Phillies, and Indians returning to winning records after one or more losing seasons. It was a huge jump and it did continue at that rate during ’94; though the increases were unlikely to be sustainable as all of the teams were unlikely to continue to win indefinitely. ’95 through ’97 attendance figures were lower, which would be expected for some fan apathy, but the numbers aren’t that far from the trends through ’92. Given ’93 and it’s carry over into ’94 was an anomaly; baseball was not in need of saving in ’98. On the surface ’98 was another big attendance jump of 8.7 mil. But 6.1 mil of that was due to the new expansion teams. So the increase for the other teams was in line with increases for the prior two years. There is no evidence the Sosa-Mark show had much of an effect (nor the wild card nor interleague play nor the Yankees to any great degree earlier). So other then expansion or the occasional multiple teams return to glory, baseball usually adds a few million a year, occasionally losing a few. If you use ’93 as a reference 4.2 million fans were added since. But when you factor in Arizona and Tampa which didn’t exist then, and the difference between Montreal’s ’93 attendance and Washing ton in 2005; they account for 4 mil of the difference. So I see the numbers as stagnant. Since some of the attendance was due to 15 new ballparks since ’94, it is unlikely the attendance figures are sustainable in the long run (only a few new ones left, and no expansion likely soon). So any true saving will be needed in the future when attendance trends down. Baseball the business has saved itself at least for now by growing revenues (from ’94 to ’05 revenues grew from just under 2 bil to about 4.5 bil). They did this by raising ticket prices, selling advertising and naming rights, broadcast rights, internet revenues, etc. Through revenue sharing, debt controls, and maybe the benefit of a little collusion a few years back, most franchises are financially healthy. At least until the owners implode again

The New York Rays of Tampa Bay so they can get some better advertising revenues

Todd Walker has limited value. First, he is almost worthless as a bench player. He can only play second base (I don’t put much value in a few first base games with the Cubs). He is a career .311 OBP and .592 OPS as a pinch hitter in his career (to put that in perspective Macias is a career .604 OPS as a pinch hitter). He’s not fast as a base runner. He is a career .310 OBP and .687 OPS against lefties in his career. He is below average defender. So no major league team is going see much value in him as a bench player. If you want to utilize him, it would be as a platoon second baseman. He has a career .789 OPS for his career (.777 translated for park factors) which is above average for a middle infielder; but the question is the extra walk or two a week make up for the one ball he misplay/the ball he can’t get to/the double play he doesn’t turn each week. Hendry and Dusty don’t think so. The pitchers may not think so (Bruce Miles referred to this in one of his posts and I’m assuming it means more then Z). Most GM’s don’t seem to think so. He has been on the trading block since last July, and I’m guessing no more then a mid-level prospect(s) have been offered or he would have been gone by now. And there don’t seem to be many teams interested, even after a career offensive year. At NSBB he’s valued for his plate discipline and OBP, not as much that he is such a great hitter but the lack of plate discipline for the team. If we had an outfield capable of raising our team OBP, Todd wouldn’t hold as much value here. Whether it’s Walker, Perez, Lugo, or whoever; the difference will not matter to the overall offense until the outfield produces at least league average numbers.

I don’t get the retirement talk, that’s not what the Astros asked for. If he retired he would forfeit his entire 17 mil for 2006. They asked him do declare himself physically unable to perform for only next year so they can collect the 15.6 mil in insurance, while paying him his full 17. If the Astros truly believe that he is very unlikely to play a good part of the season, there is nothing wrong with them asking him to make the decision by the 31st so they can take advantage of the insurance. If they are doing it because they really don’t want to pay him, or that his performance doesn’t warrant it; then it goes somewhere between unethical and insurance fraud. It sounds like Bagwell wants to play in 2006 and possibly beyond, so he would be playing for his next contract. That is his right.

Not only that, but there's so many places to hide cash in the corporate umbrella. Then figure in a lot of the peripherals, as in Premium Tickets (or whatever the bogus ticket scalping "biz's" name was), and the Cubs national television exposure (being TribCo owns WGN, therefore the TV rights go back into the same pocket) and you have even more money. My guess is, the Cubs/Tribco. make SO MUCH off things which aren't included in the actual profitability/revenue sheets, that it would be virtually impossible to calculate the real value. Bottom line, the Cubs are a cash cow. Plain and simple. Can you back that up with some facts and figures? The Cubs are profitable, but hardly a "cash cow". Their spending is in line or above comparable teams not named the Yankees or Red Sox. Every other team in their revenue range is also associated with a cable outlet. ANd if they make any profits from their ticket agency, it's likely it's in the 6 digit range, not 7 digits. Yes, there are some things that companies do to get the desired bottom line, but the net revenues recognized by baseball is 170 mil, and the player costs of 106 mil is indisputable. They still have a front office and have to pay MacPhail, Hendry, dusty, and all of the scouts; the people in the ticket office; security, ushers; toilet papaper, water for the urinals, repairs etc. Forbes estimates are based on tax records and information from MLB baseball, so the profit numbers should be pretty close.

Also Forbes 2004 Cubs and Forbes 2003 Cubs

The opening day payroll was 87 mil according to USA Today (not including Sammy's payment which would push it closer to 100 mil). By 8/31 Jobo, Remlinger, and Hawkins were gone. That's 11 mil less, so the number makes sense.

:)

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner. Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal. average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency. Garland was one year away from free agency and would have earned ~7 million had he gone to arbitration. Hoops's post says Garland's contract gives him $7 in 2006, so there's no difference in 2006 salary. Garland's 2007 and 2008 salary averages $11 per year. I think that is below market value for Jon Garland. Garland's averaged over 205 IP over the past 4 years (not including playoffs and World Series), is only 26-years-old, and had a 3.50 era in the AL last year. It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection. Garland year 3 is too much. I would compare Garland to a Washburn. Washburn just got a 4 year $36M. His career ERA is 3.15. John's best year was last year and his ERA was 3.50. 1st year is good, 2 and 3 are reaches. So what does Zambrano ask for the year before free agency. OY! Do you realize that Jon piched most of the year at age 25? There is plenty of upside to him. I think Garland was just using common sense in accepting the deal. A good year in 2006 and he could command a Millwood-esque deal in Souther California near home. But if he regressed or is injured he would be leaving 20 mil on the table. So he grabbed the security and will be a free agen again at 29. Sounds like a smart, not greedy decision.

Did they trade him to the A's or the Raiders? There will be a sequel to Moneyball coming out this spring called Psychoball.

The Score is reporting that the Cubs are going to announce during the winter meetings the resigning/reacquisition of Estes, Clement, Alfonseca, Remlinger, Borowsski, Bako, Miller, Choi, Simon, Karos, Grudz, Gonzalez, Sosa, and Alou. This was expected as the Cubs marketing department’s prior announcement that last years “Wait till next year” campaign is being replace with “If first you don’t succeed; try, try again”. In related news, Wendall Kim has been retained to return as third base coach. Dusty baker said “Our lack of scoring last year was due to players in scoring position being clogged. This will take care of that”.

Exactly. Under Hendry's watch they have filled over a million seats more over the last 3 years while raising prices. I saw tons of Cubs fans at games in LA and SD. The Cubs are still a hot item and there is almost no way they don't sell out most tickets in the first day or two on sale.

The first sentence here was tongue-in-cheek, while the second is completely objective. There really isn't any room for mischaracterization. It may be objective but it wasn't accurate. The Dodgers sent LoDuca, Mota, and Encarcion to Florida. They received Penny back along with Choi and a prospect, who is still on their roster. It is like saying Alex Gonzalez was a target in the Nomar trade in 2004.

The Dodgers received Penny in the trade, and he was the principle target. Choi was a throw in. The Marlins were dumping salary, they did not target Choi. I either case they were not targeting Choi, it just worked out that way.

That's like saying the Cubs payroll was 87M instead of 100M in '05 b/c of Sosa's contract and then saying that if the 2006 payroll was 90M, it would be an increase in payroll. :? No it's not. The Cubs actually spent the money on Sosa. It wasn't paid back by the insurance company (I am making an assumption on the insurance being paid).

Not to rub salt in the wound, look at their predicyions from 2004 (it's bad): ESPN Top 50 2004 Free Agents

The article is just a case of people who know nothing about money talking about it. The Dodgers opening day payroll last year was 83 million. Of that 13.4 mil was paid to Darren Driefort who didn’t play in 2005 (and likely covered by insurance), a bad contract from the Fox days. So the true payroll for 2005 was really about 70 mil. If the budget is truly 75 mil it is an increase from last year, not a decrease. The 2004 budget was 93 mil, but again you have Dreifort at 12.4 mil plus they traded Shawn Green’s 16.7 mil that off-season. You also have to remember that Fox sold the team because it was losing 25 plus mil a year. In 2004 Mc Court lost 20 mil (we wont know about 2005 till Forbes writes about it in April, but it is unlikely that they made a profit). The Dodgers revenues are slightly less then the Cubs, and given the MLB debt rules (McCourt financed the complete purchase), the payroll is right around where it should be. You can fault McCourt for many things, but not the budget.

It’s the sabermathematicians in the back room crunching the numbers! :-k On the flip side: San Diego 4th in walks with 600 (11 less then Cinci), 5th in OBP at .333 (.006 behind Cinci), but 13th in runs scored with 648 (19 less then the Cubs). How can that happen? 181 more walks, but 19 less runs then the woeful Cubbies (or the Dodgers 5th in walks and 18 less runs then the Cubs). Maybe batting average and slugging are equally important. Just maybe? In the last 4 years, 8 of 16 NL playoff teams were in the top 5 in OBP. But those 8 teams were all also in the top 5 in ERA. 7 of the 8 were also in the top 5 in slugging; which is exactly what you would expect. A team that scores and doesn’t allow scoring is going to make the playoffs. But half the teams made it to the playoffs were not the top OBP teams. Maybe there could be more then one way to win? This year we had the 11th in AL OBP White Sox play the 13th in the NL OBP Astros; the Marilins won in 2003 being 9th in NL OBP. There is more then one way to build a better mousetrap. If we improved our OBP just .010 we would have been in the top 5. A healthy and productive Nomar at short everyday with a .350 or so OBP; and Corey just duplicating his .320 OBP from 2004 or improving upon it would have made up all or most of the difference. Remove the 350 plate appearances of Dubois/Hollandsworth sub .300 OBP with a league average outfielder and we would have been closing in on Cinci.. We were not that far off. Call it bad luck or bad choices, but we were not that far off. Our problems had more to going from a top pitching staff to a mediocre one then anything else. Team OBP (hand in hand with slugging) is important when looking at team scoring, but not always a major factor in evaluating a players value to a team. If Neifi walked just once more a week (I know that’s impossible) he would be in the .340 OBP range. But is that one more walk a week more valuable then the hit or two he takes away a week over a lesser defensive player? It also doesn’t matter where a player bats in the lineup. There is a correlation between team OPS and runs scored, but there is none I know of that correlates to batting order. Yes, batting low OBP players in front of Derrek Lee will likely lower his individual stats. No, it does not lower runs score for the team. Baseball Prospectus a few years ago concluded that the only issue is number of at bats are higher at the top of the order, so you are giving lesser hitters more at bats. But even Billly Beane wouldn’t have the guts to bat Lee and Ramirez one and two. Remember the difference between .300 and .400 isn’t 100, it’s 10%. A hit every 2 or 3 games, but in baseball nobody can predict when in which game or inning a player will hit them. Only the Psychic Network and the God of your choice know. I’m not advocating for Neifi. Though I have no problem on the bench, or even as a replacement starter due to injuries, the 2/5 was a bit out there. Yes OBP is important, but it’s not the only thing. Pitching, defense, and slugging are equally important.

Sure, blame Tim. :)

Stuart Steinberg now has control of the club as of the end of the season.

Not likely. Signing bonuses are accounted for in the year they are paid. In most cases they are prorated and over the life of the guaranteed portion of the contract. So 4.33/5.33/5.83 is the likely numbers. Given Benitez and Percival received 3 year deals last year in the 5 to 6 mil range, the fact that the prices are rising again, and the deals Wagner and Ryan and Wagner are likely to receive; this at worse a market value contract. More likely it will turn out to be a bargain if Dempster remains effective.

This has as much credibility as the other rumors. Dusty isn't going anywhere.

i'd maybe give him a .270/.335/.400, but, yeah, i think a lot of people are expecting a little much out of him. I would like to know why so many of you are expecting him to do so much worse next year. Over the last 6 years, an average of 12 left fielders a year hit for .800 OPS and above. The list includes players like Bonds, Alou, Ramirez, Lee, Berkman, Gonzalez; and this year players like Bay and Cabrera. Matt doesn't have the pedigree or the experience to expect those kind of numbers in what would essentialy be his rookie year. You would also have to expect it to take some time for him to develop a power stroke given his lack of power in the minors. So something in the .700 to .750 OPS would be a reasonable expectation. But given the lack of production in left this year, the fact that the Cubs will consider themselves contenders for 2006, and about 30 mil to spend; it is unlikely the Cubs will wait a few years to develop a left fielder unless every other need is filled by chance. Matt's performance earns him the right to compete for a spot on the roster, nothing more until he proves what he can do over the course of the season. He may not be in the right place at the right time here.

What point of 2 year extension didn't you understand?