2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[chasfh]

On 3/17/2022 at 8:31 AM, 1776 said:

Matt Shepard begins his fourth full season calling play-by-play for the Tigers on television.

Oh, you poor, poor people.

Edited March 18, 2022 by chasfh

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Sure they can... but that doesn't mean most will.  The vast majority of sport's team owners do not dump money into the team without expect (at the very least) for it to break even on revenue.  Just because fans want owners to be willing to operate the team at a loss doesn't mean it'll happen.

Major league baseball owners do far better than break even on revenue.

[Tigeraholic1]

 

 

[Longgone]

25 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Major league baseball owners do far better than break even on revenue.

Not all of them do, no.

[Tiger337]

32 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Major league baseball owners do far better than break even on revenue.

 

7 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Not all of them do, no.

How do we know this?  

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

 

How do we know this?  

Not too far back I had some numbers on team revenue - I've already forgotten the totals but it struck me that the teams with the bottom payrolls (<$70M) are definitely making money that way. My guess would be that the only teams that ever lose money in a given year are small/mid market teams that go into a short term salary over-extend like the Tigers did. The lux-tax prevents the rich teams from spending enough to lose money, the cheap teams are guaranteed enough income to make money as long as they stay cheap.

Edited March 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Not too far back I had some numbers on team revenue - I've already forgotten the totals but it struck me that the teams with the bottom payrolls (<$70M) are definitely making money that way. My guess would be that the only teams that ever lose money in a given year are small/mid market teams that go into a short term salary over-extend like the Tigers did. The lux-tax prevents the rich teams from spending enough to lose money, the cheap teams are guaranteed enough income to make money as long as they stay cheap.

It can be easily looked up.  I just don't know how reliable anything is since they don't show their books.  One list (from Forbes) showed that all had revenues exceeding operating expenses except the Yankees and Mets. It also showed the two NY teams didn't make much much revenue which was odd.  

[RedRamage]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Major league baseball owners do far better than break even on revenue.

That's why I said "At the very least."  Most owners view this as a business and expect a profit.  Some might be willing to shave the profit line down because they really want a winner, but most won't.  Every once in a great while you'll see someone like Mike Ilitch who seemingly was willing to take a loss (maybe) because they want to win very badly.  

Your comment, while true, does nothing to support or counter my comment that most owners, while capable of running their teams at a loss, won't do that.

[SoCalTiger]

Rich people don’t lose money willing. Sam Walton drove an old Ford truck forever for goodness sake. Making money to them is “Scoreboard”. 

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Rich people don’t lose money willing. Sam Walton drove an old Ford truck forever for goodness sake. Making money to them is “Scoreboard”. 

Some are that way.  Walton probably liked his truck.  Many of them like to own lots of sports cars or big mansions without putting a dent in their wealth.  

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tiger337

[Motor City Sonics]

Headline reads Phillies in serious pursuit of Castellanos.  

 

Makes it sound like Nick is driving somewhere and they are chasing him through the streets. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

It can be easily looked up.  I just don't know how reliable anything is since they don't show their books.  One list (from Forbes) showed that all had revenues exceeding operating expenses except the Yankees and Mets. It also showed the two NY teams didn't make much much revenue which was odd.  

the league based revenue is pretty well known and player costs are pretty well established, Those things alone provide a decent basis for establishing whether a team *should* make money or not. I suppose any owner can run such a sloppy operation that they lose money because they are lousy business managers, but those cases, if any, are not the same thing as claiming that the economics of owning a baseball team are actually bad for any of the teams.

[chasfh]

MLB franchise valuations in millions:

Team	2011	2016	2021	16 vs '11	21 vs '11
New York Yankees	$   1,700	$   3,400	$   5,250	100%	209%
Boston Red Sox	$      912	$   2,300	$   3,570	152%	291%
Los Angeles Dodgers	$      800	$   2,500	$   3,465	213%	333%
Chicago Cubs	$      773	$   2,200	$   3,360	185%	335%
San Francisco Giants	$      563	$   2,250	$   3,175	300%	464%
New York Mets	$      747	$   1,650	$   2,450	121%	228%
St. Louis Cardinals	$      518	$   1,600	$   2,245	209%	333%
Philadelphia Phillies	$      609	$   1,240	$   2,050	104%	237%
LA Angels of Anaheim	$      554	$   1,340	$   2,025	142%	266%
Washington Nationals	$      417	$   1,300	$   1,925	212%	362%
Atlanta Braves	$      482	$   1,180	$   1,875	145%	289%
Houston Astros	$      474	$   1,100	$   1,870	132%	295%
Texas Rangers	$      561	$   1,230	$   1,785	119%	218%
Chicago White Sox	$      526	$   1,050	$   1,685	100%	220%
Toronto Blue Jays	$      337	$      900	$   1,675	167%	397%
Seattle Mariners	$      449	$   1,200	$   1,630	167%	263%
San Diego Padres	$      406	$      890	$   1,500	119%	269%
Baltimore Orioles	$      411	$   1,000	$   1,430	143%	248%
Minnesota Twins	$      490	$      910	$   1,325	86%	170%
Arizona Diamondbacks	$      396	$      925	$   1,320	134%	233%
Colorado Rockies	$      414	$      860	$   1,300	108%	214%
Pittsburgh Pirates	$      304	$      975	$   1,285	221%	323%
Detroit Tigers	$      385	$   1,150	$   1,260	199%	227%
Milwaukee Brewers	$      376	$      875	$   1,220	133%	224%
Cleveland Indians	$      353	$      800	$   1,160	127%	229%
Oakland Athletics	$      307	$      725	$   1,125	136%	266%
Cincinnati Reds	$      375	$      905	$   1,085	141%	189%
Kansas City Royals	$      351	$      865	$   1,060	146%	202%
Tampa Bay Rays	$      331	$      650	$   1,055	96%	219%
Florida Marlins	$      360	$      675	$      990	88%	175%

These valuations are freely available from Forbes.

No, these people are not losing money on their investment.

[casimir]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

 

How do we know this?  

I saw it on a message board, so it has to be true.

[CMRivdogs]

I would imagine owning a franchise is a bit like owning a boat or RV for us peons. The two best days......except you will most likely turn a nice profit when you sell. And there are the likelihood of trophies.

[chasfh]

I am not arguing that teams should not be able to make money. Sure, they should. This is a quasi-capitalist system and business owners should have a fair opportunity to make money on their investments, and of course that includes the owners of professional sports team.

I just reject the implication that since a major league ballclub is a small part of a billionaire's or company's or hedge fund's portfolio, they don't need to make a profit on them; therefore, they must not be profiting from their ballclubs. It's prima facie ridiculous to assume that a ballclub is a billionaire's playtoy that hemorrhages cash to please his silly sporty competitive urges. Particularly in an industry that is protected by a literal federal antitrust exemption.

Major league ballclubs are not discretionary playtoys. They are seriously profitable businesses in their own right.

[4hzglory]

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

MLB franchise valuations in millions:

Team	2011	2016	2021	16 vs '11	21 vs '11
New York Yankees	$   1,700	$   3,400	$   5,250	100%	209%
Boston Red Sox	$      912	$   2,300	$   3,570	152%	291%
Los Angeles Dodgers	$      800	$   2,500	$   3,465	213%	333%
Chicago Cubs	$      773	$   2,200	$   3,360	185%	335%
San Francisco Giants	$      563	$   2,250	$   3,175	300%	464%
New York Mets	$      747	$   1,650	$   2,450	121%	228%
St. Louis Cardinals	$      518	$   1,600	$   2,245	209%	333%
Philadelphia Phillies	$      609	$   1,240	$   2,050	104%	237%
LA Angels of Anaheim	$      554	$   1,340	$   2,025	142%	266%
Washington Nationals	$      417	$   1,300	$   1,925	212%	362%
Atlanta Braves	$      482	$   1,180	$   1,875	145%	289%
Houston Astros	$      474	$   1,100	$   1,870	132%	295%
Texas Rangers	$      561	$   1,230	$   1,785	119%	218%
Chicago White Sox	$      526	$   1,050	$   1,685	100%	220%
Toronto Blue Jays	$      337	$      900	$   1,675	167%	397%
Seattle Mariners	$      449	$   1,200	$   1,630	167%	263%
San Diego Padres	$      406	$      890	$   1,500	119%	269%
Baltimore Orioles	$      411	$   1,000	$   1,430	143%	248%
Minnesota Twins	$      490	$      910	$   1,325	86%	170%
Arizona Diamondbacks	$      396	$      925	$   1,320	134%	233%
Colorado Rockies	$      414	$      860	$   1,300	108%	214%
Pittsburgh Pirates	$      304	$      975	$   1,285	221%	323%
Detroit Tigers	$      385	$   1,150	$   1,260	199%	227%
Milwaukee Brewers	$      376	$      875	$   1,220	133%	224%
Cleveland Indians	$      353	$      800	$   1,160	127%	229%
Oakland Athletics	$      307	$      725	$   1,125	136%	266%
Cincinnati Reds	$      375	$      905	$   1,085	141%	189%
Kansas City Royals	$      351	$      865	$   1,060	146%	202%
Tampa Bay Rays	$      331	$      650	$   1,055	96%	219%
Florida Marlins	$      360	$      675	$      990	88%	175%

These valuations are freely available from Forbes.

No, these people are not losing money on their investment.

And considering the rate to "buy" an expansion team is $2 billion, that should mean every one of those teams is actually worth at least $2 billion

[buddha]

31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

MLB franchise valuations in millions:

Team	2011	2016	2021	16 vs '11	21 vs '11
New York Yankees	$   1,700	$   3,400	$   5,250	100%	209%
Boston Red Sox	$      912	$   2,300	$   3,570	152%	291%
Los Angeles Dodgers	$      800	$   2,500	$   3,465	213%	333%
Chicago Cubs	$      773	$   2,200	$   3,360	185%	335%
San Francisco Giants	$      563	$   2,250	$   3,175	300%	464%
New York Mets	$      747	$   1,650	$   2,450	121%	228%
St. Louis Cardinals	$      518	$   1,600	$   2,245	209%	333%
Philadelphia Phillies	$      609	$   1,240	$   2,050	104%	237%
LA Angels of Anaheim	$      554	$   1,340	$   2,025	142%	266%
Washington Nationals	$      417	$   1,300	$   1,925	212%	362%
Atlanta Braves	$      482	$   1,180	$   1,875	145%	289%
Houston Astros	$      474	$   1,100	$   1,870	132%	295%
Texas Rangers	$      561	$   1,230	$   1,785	119%	218%
Chicago White Sox	$      526	$   1,050	$   1,685	100%	220%
Toronto Blue Jays	$      337	$      900	$   1,675	167%	397%
Seattle Mariners	$      449	$   1,200	$   1,630	167%	263%
San Diego Padres	$      406	$      890	$   1,500	119%	269%
Baltimore Orioles	$      411	$   1,000	$   1,430	143%	248%
Minnesota Twins	$      490	$      910	$   1,325	86%	170%
Arizona Diamondbacks	$      396	$      925	$   1,320	134%	233%
Colorado Rockies	$      414	$      860	$   1,300	108%	214%
Pittsburgh Pirates	$      304	$      975	$   1,285	221%	323%
Detroit Tigers	$      385	$   1,150	$   1,260	199%	227%
Milwaukee Brewers	$      376	$      875	$   1,220	133%	224%
Cleveland Indians	$      353	$      800	$   1,160	127%	229%
Oakland Athletics	$      307	$      725	$   1,125	136%	266%
Cincinnati Reds	$      375	$      905	$   1,085	141%	189%
Kansas City Royals	$      351	$      865	$   1,060	146%	202%
Tampa Bay Rays	$      331	$      650	$   1,055	96%	219%
Florida Marlins	$      360	$      675	$      990	88%	175%

These valuations are freely available from Forbes.

No, these people are not losing money on their investment.

those are franchise values, not revenue or profit/loss.

[RandyMarsh]

I look at owning team like you owning a house that all but guarantees to multiply in value every few years and renting it out to pay the mortgage. 

If your mortgage is 2K a month and you charge 1500 in rent, sure you're going to be losing 6K a year but you're making 10x more than that in equity in this scenario. 

Same with owning sports teams, even if they lose money on the bottom line the equity they gain more than makes up for it.

Edited March 18, 2022 by RandyMarsh

[4hzglory]

58 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I look at owning team like you owning a house that all but guarantees to multiply in value every few years and renting it out to pay the mortgage. 

If your mortgage is 2K a month and you charge 1500 in rent, sure you're going to be losing 6K a year but you're making 10x more than that in equity in this scenario. 

Same with owning sports teams, even if they lose money on the bottom line the equity they gain more than makes up for it.

But you would never buy a house to rent for less than your mortgage/insurance/property taxes.  Otherwise you have to have the extra $6K per year in cash and hope that the market didn't drop.

[buddha]

54 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I look at owning team like you owning a house that all but guarantees to multiply in value every few years and renting it out to pay the mortgage. 

If your mortgage is 2K a month and you charge 1500 in rent, sure you're going to be losing 6K a year but you're making 10x more than that in equity in this scenario. 

Same with owning sports teams, even if they lose money on the bottom line the equity they gain more than makes up for it.

sure, but the actual "value of the franchise" is what someone at forbes or wherever thinks someone will pay for it.  it doesnt have anything to do with revenue or profit and loss, which is what was being argued about earlier.  ask tesla.

a more accurate view of profit and losa would be found in the company's books, which we almost never see (and can be manipulated).  that said, when we saw a snapshot of the braves' books this year, they should a very large profit.  i imagine successful teams with large media contracts like the braves also show similar profits.

but those are not all teams.  the idea seemigly put forward by some is that owners shouldnt be concerned with making money on their investment and should only be concerned with "winning" because forbes magazine says their franchises are worth a lot.  so they should just spend a ton of money on salary because they can and will still technically "make money."

i dont think that's viable like i dont think the "poor us were going broke" line from owners is viable either.  teams have budgets dependent on revenue and profit expectations.  that differs based on markets.  so be it.  its not cause owners are evil.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

I look at owning team like you owning a house that all but guarantees to multiply in value every few years and renting it out to pay the mortgage. 

If your mortgage is 2K a month and you charge 1500 in rent, sure you're going to be losing 6K a year but you're making 10x more than that in equity in this scenario. 

Same with owning sports teams, even if they lose money on the bottom line the equity they gain more than makes up for it.

I really don’t think they’re losing money on the bottom line. I think they’re doing just fine.

[oblong]

I think there is enough complexity in accounting rules and how these teams are structured than an org can show whatever suits them in terms of a profit or not. When a team goes on sale there’s demand.  

[buddha]

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

I think there is enough complexity in accounting rules and how these teams are structured than an org can show whatever suits them in terms of a profit or not. When a team goes on sale there’s demand.  

do you think steve ballmer has recouped his $2 billion investment in the clippers yet?

[gehringer_2]

59 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think that's viable like i dont think the "poor us were going broke" line from owners is viable either.  teams have budgets dependent on revenue and profit expectations.  that differs based on markets.  so be it.  its not cause owners are evil.

right. The fans' complaint really should be that as baseball has evolved it has ended up as a cockeyed, backward way to run a major sport which has left pretty much everyone with bad incentives (at least from a fan perspective)