The point we were responding to, genius, is the implication the Red Sox couldn't afford Mookie Betts. I'm well aware they still have a relatively high payroll. I found their trade of Betts to be an embarrassment and have dramatically reduced the time spent watching them as a result, and have zero plans to ever pay a dime to go to a game again.

There was a time (in fact the whole time I've been rooting for them) the Red Sox would never have dared make a salary dump like that, regardless of how profitable it was. Times have changed though, and their ownership group now views maximizing profits as more important than maximizing wins. As a result, I'm out on them. There is only so much free time I have as a grown up with a wife and kid, and to earn my attention you've gotta actually try to entertain me rather than gouging me.

Posted by chargingryno on 10/8/2021 7:05:00 PM (view original):
Also - fun fact that the author failed to mention (or I at least failed to read):

Tampa nearly tripled their total payroll from 2020 to 2021 and doubled their active payroll: from $28m total payroll to $70m total payroll - $21m active roster vs. $44m active roster. Doesn't strike me as the stingy, hard ***, everything before the players and fans monster the article paints.

Because the salaries got prorated for a 60 game season so they only had to pay 37% of what they would have in a 162 game season.

lmao you laid that one down on the table like the trump card

The point we were responding to, genius, is the implication the Red Sox couldn't afford Mookie Betts.

I didn't see anyone imply that the Red Sox couldn't afford Mookie.

The question was whether concession/ticket prices are tied to player salaries - and whether or not they need to be - I think if you look at trends over the last 10 years, as teams spend more they charge more.

I don't go to any games anymore. Even if the prices at the stadium aren't tied to player salaries and the costs that ownership has to cover, I just don't consider it of value that I'm willing to pay for. Watching $10M-$30M dollar players who can't bunt or hit to an open spot on the field due to a shift or run out a weak ground ball doesn't warrant dollars from me. I get some games on TV and watch those occasionally but I don't pay extra for those games. There is more heart and soul put into a game by high-schoolers than by todays MLBer's. Take the money away and see who is left playing the game. That's who cares.
If winning was the only thing that was important then the Yankees and Dodgers should each just spend $800M a year to have all the best players and no one else would ever be in the WS. Now wouldn't that'd be great for baseball....

Posted by bheid408 on 10/8/2021 8:27:00 PM (view original):
I don't go to any games anymore. Even if the prices at the stadium aren't tied to player salaries and the costs that ownership has to cover, I just don't consider it of value that I'm willing to pay for. Watching $10M-$30M dollar players who can't bunt or hit to an open spot on the field due to a shift or run out a weak ground ball doesn't warrant dollars from me. I get some games on TV and watch those occasionally but I don't pay extra for those games. There is more heart and soul put into a game by high-schoolers than by todays MLBer's. Take the money away and see who is left playing the game. That's who cares.
If winning was the only thing that was important then the Yankees and Dodgers should each just spend $800M a year to have all the best players and no one else would ever be in the WS. Now wouldn't that'd be great for baseball....

pure uncut Boomer heroin here

Ha ha, but that's more of an old fart thing than a Boomer thing. In Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract he's got a section in every decade recap called "Old Players Never Die." So for example in the 1910s chapter, 1890s player Bill Joyce is quoted:

"Base ball [sic] today is not what it should be. The players do not learn all the fine points of the game as in the days of old ... "

He goes on like that for half a page.

I think we found Bill Joyce's grandson.

I know the game is different - but I still love it. I don't go to as many games as I'd like cause I have 3 kids (one on the way) and don't really have many friends who're baseball fans nearby. Plus I don't care to watch the dbacks play.

Went to Phillies games most of my life. I didn’t stop because of players, owner, or salaries, but because I have 2 horrible knees. Today it is much more comfortable to watch them on TV., and I watched a lot this year.

Love Bryce, because he plays hard, not cause of how much he makes. If everyone ran as hard in the field and on the bases, they would have been a better team. Guys that don’t hustle, or sell out are what bug me. (We had several) I don’t care what they get paid.

Posted by crazystengel on 10/8/2021 1:54:00 AM (view original):
Have MLB owners finally opened their books to the public? Because I'm wondering what information you're basing these comments on.

Franchise value is market dependent. If a team is being sold, high bidders would certainly expect to get a look at the books as part of their due diligence, but the general valuation would already have been established. We have a good sense of what franchises are worth. There are plenty of lists of franchise valuations available. I've always used Forbes Business of Baseball valuations, not for any particular reason. I know they have Tampa Bay as 29th of 30. I think most other rankings of franchise valuation also list the Rays at 29, but I suspect that if you look around you could find some that put them as high as 28th. As far as revenue, particularly for small market teams that aren't co-owned with the regional sports network that broadcasts the games, we know more about revenue than people making this argument would like to admit. We know what ticket prices are and how many tickets are sold to every game. We know what the stadium naming rights contracts are. We know what the media contracts are. Small-market clubs don't pull all that much value from in-stadium advertising. Can we pin down the Rays' revenues to within $1 million, no, obviously not. But we have a pretty good sense for where they stand within the league based on the public nature of all the major drivers of revenue.

Yes, the article from my first post has a link to Forbes, among other sources.

Could Sternberg invest more? MLB teams never open up their books—I wonder why—but Sternberg owns a team whose value has risen to something like $1 billion, after he bought in at a valuation well less than half that. (Forbes reports his group bought in for $200 million, and that initial stake was 48 percent. Quick-and-dirty math says the Rays were worth around $400 million at the time, before Sternberg upped his stake.) But I don’t have to speculate, because Sternberg told a bunch of reporters in 2019 that he had $50 million more to spend and wouldn’t. You don’t have to doubt that the Rays make less money than most MLB teams to figure that Sternberg could bolster his roster with more established talent if he wanted. On the one hand, the Rays don’t need such a boost, because they’re a defending pennant winner that just won 100 games. On the other hand, they could use it. Maybe a few more bucks would have pushed the Rays over the hump in either the 2008 or ’20 World Series. We’ll never know. After last year’s loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers, Sternberg criticized his cheap roster, saying it was “hard to find” many Rays who’d have been good enough to start for Tampa Bay’s playoff opponents. That was ridiculous, but if he felt that way, maybe he could’ve paid for even more good players.

So, you know, small market team and all, but the owner's making out okay. Wonder why he's asking for government handouts?

Same reason why Ricketts is asking for govt handouts, and Oakland, and the Dbacks (and I’m sure many others)…I worked at a high end country club for 9 years as a bartender.

With some exception, the people who could afford to be there didn’t make it rich by being generous. They cut corners, they take advantage of every govt handout they can to allow them to spend as little of their own money.

I wouldn't say they're taking advantage of government handouts, as much as forcing them with extortion tactics. But at least you're sort of acknowledging they're not great people.

Posted by crazystengel on 10/9/2021 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't say they're taking advantage of government handouts, as much as forcing them with extortion tactics. But at least you're sort of acknowledging they're not great people.

Oh I’ve always acknowledged they’re not great people.

I just don’t pick which teams I cheer for based on the scummy owners

Maybe it's a semantics thing. To me it's not hard to separate the ownership from the players on the field. I cheer for Brett Phillips, for example -- hugely likeable player. I don't cheer for the organization to succeed, though, and I don't think that's going to hurt Brett Phillips at all.

I'm sure as **** not rooting for the Red Sox or Dodgers!