Author Topic: 2014-2015 MLB Offseason Discussion  (Read 32675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 11705
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #50: November 10, 2014, 10:56:14 PM »
With Granderson and Cuddyer, Lagares may be dead by June 1st.

My thought, also. They should put Duda in LF and sign a 1B who did NOT have a qualifying offer. Mets don't seem able to plan long-term. Just when "build through the draft" seemed to get them to be contenders (needing two corner OFs) the sign a 36 year old to pair up with Curtis Granderson.

Weird.

Offline sph274

  • Posts: 2016
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #51: November 11, 2014, 05:15:37 AM »
honestly this move looks really stupid unless they sign another big FA anyway(losing both 1st and 2nd round picks). it kind of seems like this move precedes another bigger signing

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #52: November 11, 2014, 05:29:03 AM »
honestly this move looks really stupid unless they sign another big FA anyway(losing both 1st and 2nd round picks). it kind of seems like this move precedes another bigger signing

I've heard this said by quite a few people, so my question is who is the second protected free agent they sign? They are set everywhere except short and to get into a bidding war for Ramirez would be even dumber than the Cuddyer signing.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 13474
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #53: November 11, 2014, 07:24:41 AM »
:hysterical:
 :hysterical:

It's a dumb move to sign a 36 year old who was hurt most of last year. Check the internet.  Most Mets fans are baffled.

I don't think the signing was smart but counting the Mets as a terrible team in 2015 may be a mistake. It's not like this will be their only offseason move. What if they trade for Tulo?

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 41352
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #54: November 11, 2014, 08:26:21 AM »
Barves sign Chein Ming Wang

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #55: November 11, 2014, 08:45:44 AM »
I don't think the signing was smart but counting the Mets as a terrible team in 2015 may be a mistake. It's not like this will be their only offseason move. What if they trade for Tulo?

What are they going to give up to get Colorado to pick up a sizable portion of his contract?


I'm not sure where the idea the Mets are going to increase their budget by a great amount.
 Forbes reported they made $1.6M in 2013 based on 2.135M in attendance and a $93M payroll.
2014 saw them have 2.148 in attendance and a $85M payroll.
They Mets aren't getting an increase in local money and maybe a $5M bump in national moneys.
They have already spent $62.5M on 5 players. With Murphy going into his final year of arbitration after making $5.7M in 2014

The Mets are still operating under a staggering amount of debt they owe Mellon is well over $500M and owe BOA for SNY. They've been operating off the $300M pumped into the organization by selling $30M part ownership to Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Maher and the like. Most if not all of that is gone.

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10724
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #56: November 11, 2014, 08:56:24 AM »
[...]
 Forbes reported they made $1.6M in 2013 based on 2.135M in attendance and a $93M payroll.
2014 saw them have 2.148 in attendance and a $85M payroll.
[...]

They only had a bit over $2 million in ticket sales for the entire season?

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #57: November 11, 2014, 08:59:03 AM »
They only had a bit over $2 million in ticket sales for the entire season?

 2M in Attendance.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18600
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #58: November 11, 2014, 09:11:07 AM »
I've heard this said by quite a few people, so my question is who is the second protected free agent they sign? They are set everywhere except short and to get into a bidding war for Ramirez would be even dumber than the Cuddyer signing.

Veteran to anchor the rotation?

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10724
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #59: November 11, 2014, 09:25:04 AM »
2M in Attendance.

$1.6M on over 2M in attendance sounds incredibly bad.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 31923
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #60: November 11, 2014, 09:40:00 AM »
$1.6M on over 2M in attendance sounds incredibly bad.

That's net income, not gross ticket sales.

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10724
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #61: November 11, 2014, 10:10:06 AM »
Still sounds incredibly bad.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 31923
  • Hell yes!
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #62: November 11, 2014, 10:18:37 AM »
Still sounds incredibly bad.

You can't really tell without the full picture.  Around the LAC crowd, any net income better than a $40m loss is excessive.

With a net income very near zero, that tells you they are likely trying to operate near break even.

Online dracnal

  • Posts: 997
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #63: November 11, 2014, 01:37:41 PM »
And from what I understand of the profit sharing rules, you want to be close to zero profit, right?  Or does MLB factor it somehow on the gross?

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18600
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #64: November 11, 2014, 01:39:40 PM »
You can't really tell without the full picture.  Around the LAC crowd, any net income better than a $40m loss is excessive.

With a net income very near zero, that tells you they are likely trying to operate near break even.

I would hope it's gross, otherwise every team would have front offices full of Jr.s and IIIs as VP of receiving a large paycheck

Online whytev

  • Posts: 8723
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #65: November 11, 2014, 01:40:59 PM »
Michael Cuddyer to the Mets.

He batted .400 at home last year.

Why does everyone forget how easy it is to hit in Colorado?

Online whytev

  • Posts: 8723
Re: Keeping an Eye on the Competition (?)
« Reply #66: November 11, 2014, 01:44:33 PM »
The Mets are still operating under a staggering amount of debt they owe Mellon is well over $500M and owe BOA for SNY. They've been operating off the $300M pumped into the organization by selling $30M part ownership to Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Maher and the like. Most if not all of that is gone.

That might explain why they are such a joke.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5230
  • Supremely Fashionable
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #67: November 11, 2014, 01:52:03 PM »
The Mets are just mediocre. Cuddyer's previous team is the joke.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #68: November 11, 2014, 02:02:28 PM »
And from what I understand of the profit sharing rules, you want to be close to zero profit, right?  Or does MLB factor it somehow on the gross?

That isn't how it works.

Online whytev

  • Posts: 8723
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #69: November 11, 2014, 02:02:47 PM »
The Mets are just mediocre. Cuddyer's previous team is the joke.

I don't see them saying they can win this year.

A "window of opportunity" discussion from a mediocre team resulting in them signing a 36-year-old is the very definition of a joke.

Online dracnal

  • Posts: 997
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #70: November 11, 2014, 02:21:56 PM »
That isn't how it works.

I may be misreading FanGraphs then.  This is what they say:

Under its current iteration, MLB’s revenue sharing program looks something like this:

● Every team in the majors pays in 31% of their net local revenue, and then that money is divided up and equally distributed to every team. Since large-market teams will have much greater local revenues than small market teams, this already puts small market teams in the black.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #71: November 11, 2014, 02:25:38 PM »
I may be misreading FanGraphs then.  This is what they say:

Under its current iteration, MLB’s revenue sharing program looks something like this:

● Every team in the majors pays in 31% of their net local revenue, and then that money is divided up and equally distributed to every team. Since large-market teams will have much greater local revenues than small market teams, this already puts small market teams in the black.

Fangraphs is also wrong.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #72: November 11, 2014, 02:32:35 PM »
Maury Brown probably understands revenue sharing better than anybody that isn't employed by a team or MLB. Wendy Thurm is good for legal issues but weak in the revenue field. To be fair she just started writing about the financial side while Brown's be doing it for years.

Online dracnal

  • Posts: 997
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #73: November 11, 2014, 02:53:18 PM »
If I read an article by Brown on the Dodgers, it sounds like while teams do give 31% of their net profit, the 34% of TV revenue that isn't counted is the part where the bulk of the money in the pot comes from and the teams (and MLB) simply try to obfuscate the numbers and hide how much money is actually in baseball?

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17608
Re: 2014-15 Offseason Discussion
« Reply #74: November 11, 2014, 02:59:44 PM »
If I read an article by Brown on the Dodgers, it sounds like while teams do give 31% of their net profit, the 34% of TV revenue that isn't counted is the part where the bulk of the money in the pot comes from and the teams (and MLB) simply try to obfuscate the numbers and hide how much money is actually in baseball?

You are confusing team overhead i.e. payroll & rent with overhead of selling beer and hot dogs. TV and Radio don't have overhead since all teams are paid by a RSN.