LeftCoastCubFan

For comparison purposes mainly. This is the likely amount reported on the Cubs taxes and used in budgets, the amount the MLPA releases every year, the data used in USA Today's salary database, and other (not all) statistics pages. Payroll is likely to be impacted by cash flow problems (see Frank McCourt) but that doesn't seem to be an issue for the Cubs. They have stated they will reinvest profits back into the team, so I think revenues is key. Increasing advertising revenues and new local TV revenues (though the big one isn't until 2019). Then it's a question of where they decide to spend it. Expand the front office and scouting; lose a few million a year in players. Spend $300 million on Wrigley renovations, less for player payroll. All necessary, but that will determine player budget. Obama raises taxes, less profits to reinvest (this is dedicated to the Politics thread).

For Soler I take it as a 6 million bonus with half deferred and paid in January. I just prorated the 6. Thank you, I forgot Concepcion but I'm not sure he belongs on the list. He's not on the 40-man Roster, and I thought anyone with a MLB contract had to be (like Soler). So I assume it is a minor league contract. Any thoughts? Ooops. Thank you, corrected on first post.

6 Starters at 42.4 Matt Garza 10.3 Edwin Jackson 13.0 (includes 2m prorated signing bonus) Jeff Samardzija 2.6 Scott Feldman 6.0 Carlos Villanueva 5.0 Scott Baker 5.5 4 relievers at 16.8 Carlos Marmol 9.8 Kyuji Fujikawa 4.5 (includes .5m prorated signing bonus) Shawn Camp 1.4 James Russell 1.1 1 catcher at 1.8 Dioner Navarro 1.8 3 infielders at 8.9 Starlin Casttro 6.0 (includes 1m prorated signing bonus) Ian Stewart 2.0 Luis Valbuena .9 5 outfielders at 28.5 Alfonso Soriano 19.0 (includes 1m prorated signing bonus) David DeJesus 4.3 Nate Schierholtz 2.3 Jorge Soler 1.7 (includes .7m signing bonus) Gerardo Concepcion 1.2 (includes .6m prorated signing bonus. No longer on 40-man roster) 19 Players at 98.4 (92.6 for those who don't believe prorated signing bonuses should be included) All others are under Cubs control and contracts have not been announced

The local media contract ends after the 2013 season. The new deal will likely eclipse the Yankees contract. Texas just got about 150 mil a year (and the Angels a bit more), the Dodgers should be worth at least twice that. So the new owners are just trying to pump up interest before negotiations. note: The Cubs receive about 50 mil a year from WGN and CSN. Though the WGN contract ends 2014, the CSN contract doesn't until after 2019.

i'd almost rather have a burner opposite marhsall anyway. ha ha. burp! Have a great night

Soriano channels his inner Andre Dawson and hears chants of "MVP! MVP!" in April

I feel like I'm at an Occupy rally. There are a dozen teams that had a higher profit than the Cubs, including the Dodgers, Pirates, and Padres. If you had 700 mil to invest where would you put it? They would have made more than 23 mil if they invested it in T-Bills. I didn't know the Cubs were a charity.

The Cubs did not "clear" 250 mil. They did have 258 mil in revenues. But 157 mil in player expenses. Add other expenses and they "cleared" 23 mil pre-tax. The Rickets likely can spend, but the numbers you use say the opposite.

The intent (in my opinion) of this thread has nothing to do with the budgeting directly. It is to see where we stand with payroll to speculate what we have to spend. We have limited data. Cotts contract details and USA Today’s database are the main sources of data. Also have found that when teams talk budget numbers, they tend to match the salary plus prorated bonus amounts. This is not an accounting exercise. We do not include players per diem when they travel, the cost of the home game buffets, the cost of health insurance, the cost of individual hotel suites in contracts, etc. which amount to millions. We also are not looking at the increased costs for bringing in Theo and expanding the baseball management side. We aren’t looking at the cost of water for the troughs or TP in the stall. Or what revenues will be, or the cost of paying back the loans to themselves, or the current present value of money. Everything affects budget, but we don’t know the details or really care. But we do have a number every year. It may be as vague as payroll stays the same or will increase 10 mil. Or some years it’s a stared amount. We are just trying to see what we might have left to spend. I’m not an accountant, and I haven’t stayed in a Holliday Inn Express; but I do have 25 years in analysis and development of financial systems. I know enough to know that when someone says 5 mil in deferred salary from last year is an expense for this year is wrong, and I point that out. If I am incorrect please point out how. If the Cubs deferred salary last year, it is likely it was a cash flow issue. But that doesn’t change the player expense side. Where do you get the quote part? I quoted Bruce Levine. He did not give his sources or any direct quote. I took it as his opinion. You took it as a quote. I disagree with your conclusion. Go to the LA Times website. There is an article about Pujols financial benefit. It starts with a picture of a jersey being sold and talks about increased revenues from merchandise sales. If sports writers understood finance they would be part of the 1% rather than sports writers.

Added Ian Stewart to first post

Not really. The 5 million is an expense of 2011, even though it is paid through payroll this year (Do a Google search on FASB or IRS and deferred compensation rules). Pena’s full salary is included in 2011 player’s expense, and included in the Cubs 2011 tax return. The 5 million dollar deferral becomes a liability at present value in 2011. The basic agreement also requires that any amount over 1 million be funded in a safe investment. But it’s a balance sheet item at this point. So even though it is correct that it will be paid through payroll in 2012; Bruce is incorrect saying “The $5 million will count against the Cubs' 2012 payrol”.

A 40 million firstbase platoon?

Updated first post with double-D signing

"Possibly in the future a managerial position may come to fruition for me." seems to indicate he was not the first choice.

Wells is in his first year of arbitration. He is unlikely to see that big of an increase. Silva’s buyout became an expense as soon as they cut him, regardless of when they actually pay it. If the Cubs borrowed from Bank of America instead of Dempster would it change his salary for 2012? The expense is the same, just a liability added to the balance sheet. Same goes for Pena.

Thank you for finding the errors. I corrected them on first post. Note to self: don’t look at numbers after midnight.

There are only 7 players under contract for $72.9 million (including prorated signing bonuses) Carlos Zambrano - 19.0 (2013 vesting option of 19.3 if he is in top 4 in Cy Young Voting) Ryan Dempster - 14.0 Carlos Marmol - 7.0 Sean Marshall - 3.1 Alfonso Soriano - 19.0 Marlon Byrd - 6.5 David DeJesus - 4.3 Note Figures include 2.0 (Zambrano/Soriano) million in prorated signing bonuses ------ There are 6 arbitration eligible players with a SWAG of $19.3 if all retained Matt Garza - 8.0 (6.0 2011 2nd year arb eligible) Randy Wells - 1.0 (0.5 2011 1st yr arb eligible) Geovany Soto - 5.0 (3.0 2011 2nd year arb eligible) Jeff Baker - 2.0 (1.2 2011 3rd year arb eligible) Blake DeWitt - 0.8 (0.5 2011 1st yr arb eligible) Ian Stewart - 2.5 (2.3 2011 1st yr arb eligible - was super 2 last year?) ----- 8 Free Agents Kerry Wood John Grabow Rodrigo Lopez Ramon Ortiz Koyie Hill Carlos Pena Aramis Ramirez Reed Johnson ----- Other players are under Cub’s control. If filling out roster with no changes, 13 players at $8 mil Note: Samardzija (3.3 2011, 2.8 without signing bonus) Cubs declined contract but can only cut 20%, so if kept he will cost at least 2.2 mil Current 25 man roster TOTAL is $100.2

Can't have your first baseman be manager

He'd make a better trainer

Is Dusty Baker ready to move out of the dugout and take on the challenges of the front office?

This is the biggest changes yet in scoring. I've been in the league for 4 years and haven't seen anything like this. It’s a 1 PPR league. Other than favoring heavily used offenses, am I missing anything?

I changed my team name from "Bearly Champs" to "Insane Fantasy" 2 years ago. Back to back championships.

Updated first post for Marmol Signing

3.2 this year? I know it's tight, but the injury hedge has to be a worthwhile investment. Hopefully his arm is young enough from catching that he doesn't go boom until 2014. Anyone have an idea how insurance works on something like this? Hypothetically speaking if you have 100% coverage in case of injury, and Marmol goes bust in spring training 2013, does the 9.8M get covered, or is it the average value of the contract that's covered? Only if they insure it. An insurance policy is going to be in the 6 to 7 figure range. It is likely the Cubs would assume the risk, or only have coverage for specific injuries.

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet. I'm not sure why anyone would think they wouldn't be putting any of the money back into the team. Really, think about for just a second. If you're saying that payroll could be locked in place or reduced, OK, but you seem to be saying that there's doubt that the Ricketts will spend any of the money coming off the books in the next two seasons. They will spend a large portion of it servicing their debt. Then they have to pay for fixing up Wrigley if they can't get the city and state to pay for it. I think they will try to do whatever it takes to build a winner. They may have to take some heat to stay on track. There debt servicing is 3% on the 700 mil they borrowed from themselves. It's not a big issue. Wrigley will get more and more costly, but will likely be offset by increased and new revenue sources. Where the payroll will be in the future is an unknown, but if they stop spending attendance will drop.