Email
PrintComments
what does the man faster than the steam hammer know about revenue sharing?
by Brick. on Dec 2, 2009 3:13 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
it seems to me a minimum salary cap would never work.
“welp, we’re still 7 mil under. guess we better pick up jhonny’s option. then waive him to make room on the 25-man for chisenhall..”
Plus, wouldn’t they need a different name? Salary shoe?
by Logodaedalus on Dec 3, 2009 1:49 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
- TV market in 2008-2009. I guess you can define"media" market in any number of ways.
by millionairesrow on Dec 2, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
While it doesn’t address media specifically, this table would seem to rank population centers in a way that correlates very strongly with revenue potential.
by Jay on Dec 2, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
The Red Sox market clearly also includes Portland, Maine, with an additional 620,000 people, making it essentially a tie for fourth with MD/DC/NoVA.
Yeah, the 11 people who care about one of those teams are split about actually watching the game instead of King of Queens reruns.
by afh4 on Dec 3, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nah, trust me, most of them are watching Yankees or Red Sox games.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure that’s really true. You can’t just divide by two, because that’s not how ad rates are determined, and that’s what drives broadcast contracts.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Well, Boston Market is actually really overpriced and pretty crappy takeout
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
There’s a Boston Market like a block away from me. I walked in once, looked at the prices, looked at the food, and then left.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 4, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Ironically, it’s a decent fast food option for vegetarians.
by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
Really? That is ironic. I don’t think I’ve so much as set foot in one since the cessation of my meat-eating. They have dishes that aren’t just starch?
These days my fast food options are pretty much limited to bean burritos… and Asian, but that’s usually a couple bucks too expensive to really be considered in the “fast food” category.
Its Taco Bell or Subway (or Jimmy Johns if I make a trip out to steal yard commons to treat myself) And I feel my self-esteem plummet everytime I order another item off the Taco Menu in drive-thru.
Oh yeah, Subway’s pretty good too. And one of the principle advantages of living in Tucson is never having to eat at Taco Bell.
Good luck getting anyone who’s ever lived in Philly to agree that Subway is even mediocre. How even a single location of that place stays open is beyond me.
by Jay on Dec 6, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
I was surprised when all of my friends from Philly were so anti-Subway and pro-Blimpie in college. I think Subways in the midwest are better than Subways on the east coast. And I think Blimpie is gross.
by APV on Dec 7, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
You might be right about regional Subways. I agree Blimpie is gross, but I’ve heard good things about Quizno.
Quizno’s has lost any respect I had for it by drastically slashing the size of their subs to make prices close to Subway’s.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
Ah, that is true. I forgot about that because I haven’t been there in a while, but their sandwiches are at least 40% smaller than they used to be, and not much cheaper.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Their $4 torpedo is an OK deal but falls apart. I had to switch to Quizno’s at work for when I forget lunch at night because the Subway here closed. It’s either that or overpriced Pancheros or Panera. I don’t make enough for that kind of shenanigans, though.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
I had no idea. Their old sizes were definitely big.
by APV on Dec 7, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
In terms of chain sub places, I’d say:
Quiznos > Subway >>>> Blimpie’s
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 7, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
What about Potbelly?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 7, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Jersey Mike’s is good. Not sure how many people are familiar with them, but I love their meatball and chicken parmesan subs.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 8, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
Right, Subway:Philly::Taco Bell:Tucson
Although if you aren’t a meat eater, you don’t benefit from the Philly cheesesteak. Though I guess veggie hoagies are pretty good too.
And that’s how I feel with Subway.
I would love to live in a town where good, cheap Mexican food is rampant.
Seriously. DC sucks in terms of Mexican food. It’s the one thing you really just can’t find. Tons of Ethiopian, Indian, terrible overpriced “tapas,” but no decent Mexican.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
There’s some great Mexican here — I mean, at some point, a city of a certain size has to have at least one good Mexican joint. There just isn’t good, cheap Mexican here. This is a big part of local culture — what foods are really good and really cheap and basically ubiquitous? In Philly, it’s Italian food, Chinese food, and hoagies (sub sandwiches). But not Mexican.
by Jay on Dec 8, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
I have. It is a sad state of affairs if that is the best Boston can offer.
by APV on Dec 9, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Why is there no national Taco Bell competitor?
Chipotle really doesn’t count.
Wait 'til next millennium!
I think I’ve seen a few Del Taco’s outside the W/SW also. What about Baja Fresh?
by APV on Dec 9, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah you basically order a bunch of sides. Eh, the problem with the place as I see it, is it’s actually not that “greasy fast-food” type place that when I’m feeling like fast food I really crave.
But do they have sides that aren’t just starch? Aren’t they mostly things like mashed potatoes, stuffing, corn, etc.? I guess maybe they have, like, green beans or something?
Yeah, they have a few vegetable options, but mostly it’s starch. Fast food is all starch and fried foods anyway, though, vegetarian or not.
by Jay on Dec 6, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
To clarify: I never said it was a healthy option, I said it was a vegetarian option.
by Jay on Dec 6, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
True, but at least fried meat keeps you full for a while. If I eat a meal of nothing but starch, I’m often hungry again before the next meal time rolls around.
(Contrast with refried beans, which are pretty filling. Granted, they often contain lard — but that’s one area where I’m willing to compromise.)
Yes you bring up a good point about the starch not being filling. There needs to be something in the bunch that gives you protein, usually its simply cheese or beans as you say. You know there’s a place called “Mo’s” that has tofu as an option for its burritos, its more comparable to a subway (or really most comparable to chipotle) not so much the drive-thru fast food places like T-Bell, Burger King, etc.
That’s not what he said. He said they “play” in the 16th largest. Technically that is correct. Boston, which is where Fenway Park is, is the 16th largest media market. He doesn’t mention that the Red Sox market extends beyond Boston, which makes their media market much larger than 16th.
It’s a distortion. It’s an obfuscation. It’s a lie.
by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
He loves to point out that the revenue-sharing structure is unlike anything in American business. He’s ignoring the fact that he’s operating his business in the only legal monopoly in the country.
Rob Neyer wrote a scathing criticism of Henry’s comment, and it was damn good. I can’t include it here bc it’s paid content, but it’s spot on.
Having a minimum payroll makes no sense. If it’s 60M or 70M, a team with prospects it wants to play must sign a veteran player to a contract in order to meet the minimum? So then you’re either blocking prospects or paying mediocre free agents more money, which then raises the cost of the more talent players teams actually want to sign.
Of course, one solution is just to force teams who don’t meet the minimum to just pay back into the general fund their deficiency.
A tax-like “loss roll-forward” may be fun and entertaining. Say, over three years, you need to spend the payroll booty, whatever you don’t spend rolls over. In year 3, use it or lose it. Don’t spend (yr 1), don’t spend (yr 2), SPEND!!!! (yr 3) Of course, I would hate to see what that would do to player salaries.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Dec 2, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
I seem to have found the Neyer piece for free.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I’m pretty sure that Neyer’s blog has been free for quite a while, now.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
“Change is needed and that is reflected by the fact that over a billion dollars have been paid to seven chronically uncompetitive teams, five of whom have had baseball’s highest operating profits,” Henry responded in an e-mail. “Who, except these teams, can think this is a good idea?”
This, I think, is true. Loria pockets the revenue sharing money, or uses it to pay down his debt. He ain’t paying it to the Marlins players.
Who are the seven “chronically uncompetitive teams”? (1) Marlins, (2) Pirates, (3) Royals, (4) Nats, (5) Padres?, (6) ??, (7) ??
Mandating a percentage of revenues that must be spent on salaries would make for a hilarious position with the Yankees. They’d have to sign everybody.
Can we even call the Marlins uncompetitive when they have won as many WS titles as anyone else this decade?
Baltimore for sure.
possibly SF, Arizona, Toronto, Cincy, Houston or Oakland. Of that group, I’d say probably Cincy.
true, and now they’re in massive sell-off mode to offset the loss of revenues from the complete collapse of the real estate market in Arizona. Not arguing that they’ve been competitive. Rather that now they’re a low-revenue team with a new owner that might be interested in paying down his debt while his team “rebuilds”.
Although, maybe the entire NL West is chronically uncompetitive.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The seven MLB franchises that were more profitable than the Red Sox in Forbes’ most recent ranking: Marlins, Nationals, Cubs, Rays, Orioles, Twins and Athletics. Of those 7, the only franchises that haven’t been competitive at all recently are the Nationals and Orioles.
This is misleading, though, in a way that all MLB owners well understand.
One team can show an operating profit of $20 million, while the value of the club as an asset remains the same.
Another team can show an operating loss of $20 million, while the value of the club as an asset rose by $100 million.
So you tell me: Which club was truly more profitable?
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
Well, sure. The Marlins, baseball’s least valuable franchise, showed the highest operating profit. The Yankees, baseball’s most valuable franchise, showed an operating loss on paper, but their increase in value ($195 million) dwarfed both the operating profit ($46 million) and increase in value ($21 million) of the Marlins. John Henry knows this, which is why he talks about operating profit.
Right. And of course the Yankees operating loss is notwithstanding the YES Network balance sheet, which most assuredly shows a monstrous profit.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
the YES network’s figures wouldn’t be factored into the forbes evaluation of the yankees’ profitability or value (except to the extent that YES pays the yankees a rights fee) because they’re now separate companies owned by the same parent. the yankees, accordingly, can be capitalized through their parent with YES profits without actually showing profits on their book.
All sorts of off-balance-sheet considerations: parking, concessions, licensing (though that may be MLBPA). Lots of ways to show losses when you’re raking in the cash.
Neyer mentioned all those in his article (along with the TV network). He also mentioned that the team could pay the owner’s wife and kids a “salary” of a couple million each.
That’s a point that hits home with many readers, but it’s a very minor piece of the overall picture.
It’s egregious as a dumb-rich-guy thing to do, but it’s not egregious from a baseball or competitive standpoint.
I think this sort of thing happens a lot more in corporate America than most people realize. So not that egregious.
Commonplace, maybe, but still egregious
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 7, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
You need to look up the definition. If it’s commonplace, obviously it can’t also be extraordinary or exceptional.
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
Ergregious: 2 : conspicuous; especially : conspicuously bad : flagrant
Also! A distinction. Just because it is common amongst the highest echelons of corporate America, it doesn’t mean it’s commonplace through all of America, hence still egregious.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 7, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
So you’re saying we can describe things better by ignoring context?
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
Not exactly. I’m just saying that the majority of Americans would be justifiably upset by hearing that the wife of an owner of a company is getting paid a full salary to do nothing while unemployment is rampant.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
All non-Boston-or-NY AL East teams are chronically uncompetitive. Throwing out last year’s aberration, the Rays have always had a losing record. And the Orioles and Blue Jays haven’t made the playoffs in over a decade.
Throw in the Nationals and Pirates and there’s 5 of the 7.
It’s ridiculous to call the Blue Jays “chronically uncompetitive.” They’re only a .500 team because of their division.
His implication is that teams are tanking and taking money home. Neither the Orioles or Jays do that; they’ve both spent extensively and still failed to compete because the Red Sox and Yankees spend so much more.
I agree with the second part of your post, not entirely with the first part.
They’re chronically uncompetitive in part because they’re in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox. On the other hand, their old GM handed out 3 of the worst contracts in recent history. Vernon Wells, Rios and BJ Ryan were just terrible deals. So, while they were spending money, they weren’t doing it wisely. Halladay was the only smart contract they had. Burnett’s was so one-sided it’s laughable. It was structured such that, if he put together 2 or 3 good years, he could bail and get another huge deal. And he did that.
Back to my point though. They have made more really bad deals than really good deals, which has enabled them to be chronically uncompetitive. The unbalanced schedule was only partially responsible for their WL record.
It was structured such that, if he put together 2 or 3 good years, he could bail and get another huge deal. And he did that.
I wrote about this re: Sabathia’s deal. It’s not at all obvious at first glance how awful opt-out clauses are for the club, but they are really terrible. You basically assume 100% of the risk while giving away two-thirds of the upside. Really awful, and a telltale sign of a GM who doesn’t know how long he can stay in his job.
by Jay on Dec 7, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions
agreed.
I’d almost go a step further to say it’s all down-side for the club. The types of deals that include opt-outs are ones that are somewhere between market-value and way-over-market-value. So in order to get anything close to a good deal (from the club’s perspective), the guy would have to basically win the Cy Young in dominant fashion every year up to the opt-out, then have him opt out, go to another team and ruin his arm a la Mike Hampton. Otherwise, you’re paying at least market value with no chance of being on the better side of the deal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
