Jump to content
Kyyle23

Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also there was a report that Harper met with other teams recently for a 2nd or 3rd time and the media didn’t report on those.

The difference is Boras wants it known more teams are in the mix.  The Cubs meeting with Harper (whether serious or not) would be huge in that sense and something Boras would make sure gets out there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fathom said:

Also there was a report that Harper met with other teams recently for a 2nd or 3rd time and the media didn’t report on those.

Fathom the Cubs have been very transparent under Theo and company with what their overall plan is. They have made it really clear Harper is not in the cards for them. If they can somehow dump a bunch of contracts that may change, and I think they have left the door open for that particular circumstance but they seem to see that that is extremely unlikely. They know they aren’t getting any interest at all for Heyward. You can stop worrying about the boogie man cubs. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shipps said:

Fathom the Cubs have been very transparent under Theo and company with what their overall plan is. They have made it really clear Harper is not in the cards for them. If they can somehow dump a bunch of contracts that may change, and I think they have left the door open for that particular circumstance but they seem to see that that is extremely unlikely. They know they aren’t getting any interest at all for Heyward. You can stop worrying about the boogie man cubs. 

I don't know. It may have been the the Cubs were out at the original asking price but he is nor getting what he wanted. Maybe the Cubs would be in at the lower price. Imagine the media hype with Harper and the new local broadcasting company they are starting. The ad revenue may pay for the luxury tax penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

I don't know. It may have been the the Cubs were out at the original asking price but he is nor getting what he wanted. Maybe the Cubs would be in at the lower price. Imagine the media hype with Harper and the new local broadcasting company they are starting. The ad revenue may pay for the luxury tax penalty.

The “lower price” for Harper at best case is probably 10/$300M.  The Cubs can not afford anything close to that level of contract.  The Ricketts are running the Cubs like a business and are using their profits to pay off interest / debt load.

And what ad revenue are you referring to?  Have you seen Cubs’ TV ratings?  There is no upside because their ratings are already insanely good.  Adding Harper would reflect the definition of diminishing returns.  Someone who can actually take advantage of his marketability will pay him what’s he worth.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The “lower price” for Harper at best case is probably 10/$300M.  The Cubs can not afford anything close to that level of contract.  The Ricketts are running the Cubs like a business and are using their profits to pay off interest / debt load.

And what ad revenue are you referring to?  Have you seen Cubs’ TV ratings?  There is no upside because their ratings are already insanely good.  Adding Harper would reflect the definition of diminishing returns.  Someone who can actually take advantage of his marketability will pay him what’s he worth.

This is a real good point. The Cibs are maxed out. The park is full every day. Their ratings are amongst the best in baseball.  They even own half of the neighborhood. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The “lower price” for Harper at best case is probably 10/$300M.  The Cubs can not afford anything close to that level of contract.  The Ricketts are running the Cubs like a business and are using their profits to pay off interest / debt load.

And what ad revenue are you referring to?  Have you seen Cubs’ TV ratings?  There is no upside because their ratings are already insanely good.  Adding Harper would reflect the definition of diminishing returns.  Someone who can actually take advantage of his marketability will pay him what’s he worth.

The ad revenue will be more just for the Cubs as they start their own network. No longer splitting it with the Sox, bulls and Blackhawks  from the previous station. I'm not saying it's going to happen but depending on how low the price goes, I could see them looking into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ptatc said:

The ad revenue will be more just for the Cubs as they start their own network. No longer splitting it with the Sox, bulls and Blackhawks  from the previous station. I'm not saying it's going to happen but depending on how low the price goes, I could see them looking into it.

Advertisers pay for ratings and adding Harper won’t materially change them.  The Cubs owning a bigger share of their network doesn’t change that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tony said:

I love how much you want Harper to the Cubs to be real. Warms my heart. 

Yep would love nothing more than the Cubs getting better while the Sox chances to miss on Manny increase.  If they are meeting with him this late in the process, they clearly have some interest in him.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fathom said:

Yep would love nothing more than the Cubs getting better while the Sox chances to miss on Manny increase.  If they are meeting with him this late in the process, they clearly have some interest in him.

They aren’t actually meeting with him though. There haven’t been much credibility from any of the proclaimed insiders this off season. And even IF the Cubs were checking in on him it would be because they are sniffing around for a discount which the players union would be absolutely livid if Harper even entertained that, especially in this markets current climate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Advertisers pay for ratings and adding Harper won’t materially change them.  The Cubs owning a bigger share of their network doesn’t change that point.

Even if the ad revenue stays the same, the Cubs will get a bigger share of it not having to split it with other partners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Ricketts would probably go to the City Council and ask that the taxpayers pick up the luxury tax.

It would be a good business move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Even if the ad revenue stays the same, the Cubs will get a bigger share of it not having to split it with other partners. 

Sure, but they get that bigger share with or without Harper.  That’s the point I’m trying make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of affordability for any team other than the Braves (publicly available financials), is a big unknown. Fans don't have visibility into the financials. We don't get to see all of the on/off balance sheet assets (i.e. surrounding real estate appreciation, ancillary revenues, etc.). Hence, we use traditional metrics such as attendance, player salaries and luxury tax to speculate on what teams can afford. I'm guessing the Cubs, despite their bloated payroll can absorb a whale contract as easily or moreso than the Sox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Flash said:

The issue of affordability for any team other than the Braves (publicly available financials), is a big unknown. Fans don't have visibility into the financials. We don't get to see all of the on/off balance sheet assets (i.e. surrounding real estate appreciation, ancillary revenues, etc.). Hence, we use traditional metrics such as attendance, player salaries and luxury tax to speculate on what teams can afford. I'm guessing the Cubs, despite their bloated payroll can absorb a whale contract as easily or moreso than the Sox. 

Just a terrible post and it borderlines on trolling.  The Sox probably have the most financial flexibility of any team in baseball.  The Cubs are owned by a trust fund, are paying down their debt load via the earnings of the business, and would need to blow out the luxury tax threshold to add a big contact (something much more liquid ownerships are afraid to do).  There isn’t even a debate here who can more easily absorb a whale contract.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Just a terrible post and it borderlines on trolling.  The Sox probably have the most financial flexibility of any team in baseball.  The Cubs are owned by a trust fund, are paying down their debt load via the earnings of the business, and would need to blow out the luxury tax threshold to add a big contact (something much more liquid ownerships are afraid to do).  There isn’t even a debate here who can more easily absorb a whale contract.

According to Forbes estimates, Cubs revenue is almost double that of the Sox and their operating income is 3X. This doesn't take into scope additional off balance sheet assets, the benefits of which flow directly to the owners.  Sure, if all you look at is what teams want you to see, and put it in the context of Luxury Tax, then you can make oversimplified comments about what the Cubs, Sox or any other team can afford. The fact is the Atlanta Braves are the only team with publicly available financials. Give me a logical business reason based on fact, not your assumptions or speculation as to why, as you put it, 'there isn't even a debate about who can more easily absorb a whale contract.' I submit that on a percentage basis, another whale contract to the Cubs would have less financial impact to the Cubs than Sox.  Also, your statements that the Cubs are owned by a trust fund and are paying down debt via earnings in inaccurate and irrelevant. For perspective, which asset would you rather own  (or who's shoes would you rather be in ?) JR/WS or Ricketts/Cubs.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flash said:

According to Forbes estimates, Cubs revenue is almost double that of the Sox and their operating income is 3X. This doesn't take into scope additional off balance sheet assets, the benefits of which flow directly to the owners.  Sure, if all you look at is what teams want you to see, and put it in the context of Luxury Tax, then you can make oversimplified comments about what the Cubs, Sox or any other team can afford. The fact is the Atlanta Braves are the only team with publicly available financials. Give me a logical business reason based on fact, not your assumptions or speculation as to why, as you put it, 'there isn't even a debate about who can more easily absorb a whale contract.' I submit that on a percentage basis, another whale contract to the Cubs would have less financial impact to the Cubs than Sox.  Also, your statements that the Cubs are owned by a trust fund and are paying down debt via earnings in inaccurate and irrelevant. For perspective, which asset would you rather own  (or who's shoes would you rather be in ?) JR/WS or Ricketts/Cubs.  

The Cubs, but coming out of 2016...now it’s pretty close to even (if if if the Sox sign Machado or Harper), but I’m referring more to which team is better positioned for the future compared to something subjective or fuzzier than which franchise has the most fans or popularity or media coverage.

There’s a dent in the Cubs’ armor right now, and the Theo/Cubs’ Way myth isn’t what it was at the end of 2016.  The Cubs still have 2-3 years left to ride that wave, but it’s looking like the projected Cubs’ dynasty is far from a foregone conclusion.  The Madden Magic has faded as well.   It’s always easier to win that first time than to repeat, because the motivation isn’t going to be quite the same, everyone gets distracted by things off the field, pitchers get worn down, the media starts to become a bit more critical because the fans become increasingly demanding when prices go so high.

We’ll see how many fans have the appetite to pay $5 extra per month for the Marquis channel or whatever they’re currently calling it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flash said:

According to Forbes estimates, Cubs revenue is almost double that of the Sox and their operating income is 3X. This doesn't take into scope additional off balance sheet assets, the benefits of which flow directly to the owners.  Sure, if all you look at is what teams want you to see, and put it in the context of Luxury Tax, then you can make oversimplified comments about what the Cubs, Sox or any other team can afford. The fact is the Atlanta Braves are the only team with publicly available financials. Give me a logical business reason based on fact, not your assumptions or speculation as to why, as you put it, 'there isn't even a debate about who can more easily absorb a whale contract.' I submit that on a percentage basis, another whale contract to the Cubs would have less financial impact to the Cubs than Sox.  Also, your statements that the Cubs are owned by a trust fund and are paying down debt via earnings in inaccurate and irrelevant. For perspective, which asset would you rather own  (or who's shoes would you rather be in ?) JR/WS or Ricketts/Cubs.  

Which part isn’t true, that the Cubs are owned by a family trust or that the Cubs aren’t paying down their debt via their earnings?  I’ll hang up & listen now.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

Which part isn’t true, that the Cubs are owned by a family trust or that the Cubs aren’t paying down their debt via their earnings?  I’ll hang up & listen now.

Hang up and listen to this genius...notwithstanding all of the other appreciating and income producing assets the Cubs flagship brand drives and just focusing on the limited data that Forbes has access to, Sox operating income last year was $30M and Cubs was $100M. Assuming an additional $30M (whale) in payroll for each team and a corresponding hit to operating income, WS operating income goes to zero and the Cubs, even assuming a $15M luxury tax hit, falls to $55M. The only question Ricketts has to ask is 'will the additional expenditure pay off in increased revenue or asset appreciation?' On the other hand, the question JR has to ask is 'what size capital call do I need to make to my fellow investors?'

As to your questions about how the Ricketts family manages their finances, why on earth does anyone give a rats ass? Do yourself a favor and refrain from making disparaging remarks about things you have a superficial understanding of. You are a passionate Sox fan but a business genius you're not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flash said:

Hang up and listen to this genius...notwithstanding all of the other appreciating and income producing assets the Cubs flagship brand drives and just focusing on the limited data that Forbes has access to, Sox operating income last year was $30M and Cubs was $100M. Assuming an additional $30M (whale) in payroll for each team and a corresponding hit to operating income, WS operating income goes to zero and the Cubs, even assuming a $15M luxury tax hit, falls to $55M. The only question Ricketts has to ask is 'will the additional expenditure pay off in increased revenue or asset appreciation?' On the other hand, the question JR has to ask is 'what size capital call do I need to make to my fellow investors?'

As to your questions about how the Ricketts family manages their finances, why on earth does anyone give a rats ass? Do yourself a favor and refrain from making disparaging remarks about things you have a superficial understanding of. You are a passionate Sox fan but a business genius you're not. 

 

A made up Forbes number does you know good. The sox operating income doesnt go to zero by spending 30 million more - that's not how that works. 

Why cant he make disparaging remarks about the Cubs owners financial standing? 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×