Got it. I agree that the luxury tax threshold is largely an artificial constraint. No reason to not blow by it if you can afford it and are in a competitive window. Looks like the $102m figure is an EBITDA figure. So in order to determine budget availability, you'd have to factor in roughly $25m in amusement taxes (roughly 12% of Forbes' gate receipts numbers), plus property taxes for Wrigley and the surrounding properties plus some additional taxes. Not sure what the interest expense is from the initial purchase plus additional interest paid in connection with the Wrigley renovations. If the Wrigley renovations were funded with equity investments, then that would slightly lower the figure. Revenue may have been lower this year due to no playoff run as well, plus the player cost was substantially higher this year compared to Forbes' $180m figure. I'm not trying to defend ownership at all costs, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "Of course they can afford Harper, the Cubs are rich." Until the new TV deal has been formalized, it seems likely that they really are at the upper bounds of what they can afford. With that said, if I were them, I'd take the one year hit and sign Harper. Yeah, I'd guess the break even point right now is somewhere around $250, but it will jump up next year with the new local tv deal plus MLB's re-ups on the national deals. Also, they had years during the rebuild (or hell, just last year when they had a payroll only in the 180s/190s) where they were pocketing cash. If the Ricketts were honest about their dollars in dollars out policy, 2019 and 2020 should have been circled years ago as the seasons where payroll would be stretched and they ought to make up the difference. Instead, my guess is during those lean years they used the profits on the renovations (even though IMO that's not a baseball ops expense), and now payroll is still being capped at a number where they project themselves to be revenue neutral-ish.