Fielder

[Baseball is Life]

They paid $450m for the franchise, and obviously borrowed quite a bit to do so but we don't have the actual numbers.  Let's say they borrowed $300, they would still have shelled out $150m out of pocket, though would have $300m in debt to repay. 

If this were anything but OUR team here (i.e. just another LBO of a company) everyone would assume that the business itself would have to generate enough cash to make the debt payments as well as give a return on the $150m invested by the owners.   That is obviously the point of any investment.  The major difference between our specific situation and this generic business model is that the stadium was publically funded and the lease payment the team must make to the city is obviously a token, not a real market rate.  So in essence they have a very low cost structure that has been handed to them, and in return they should not be diverting all of that to shareholder returns but sharing the wealth with the greater community at large who provided the benefit.

This is the most rational argument I've ever heard from the LAC crowd. Good on you.

Do you think some ire needs to be directed at the city leaders who agreed to the deal in the first place. Something to think about.

[Lintyfresh85]

They paid $450m for the franchise, and obviously borrowed quite a bit to do so but we don't have the actual numbers.  Let's say they borrowed $300, they would still have shelled out $150m out of pocket, though would have $300m in debt to repay. 

If this were anything but OUR team here (i.e. just another LBO of a company) everyone would assume that the business itself would have to generate enough cash to make the debt payments as well as give a return on the $150m invested by the owners.   That is obviously the point of any investment.  The major difference between our specific situation and this generic business model is that the stadium was publically funded and the lease payment the team must make to the city is obviously a token, not a real market rate.  So in essence they have a very low cost structure that has been handed to them, and in return they should not be diverting all of that to shareholder returns but sharing the wealth with the greater community at large who provided the benefit.

Also, ballclubs are supposed to be like public trusts... you're expected to do good by the community, whereas if this was a regular business... no one would care, as you said.

[Baseball is Life]

Also, ballclubs are supposed to be like public trusts... you're expected to do good by the community, whereas if this was a regular business... no one would care, as you said.

I'm as much a bleeding heart as the next guy but I think this is becoming less the case in sports nowadays. Hell, you could make the case it never was for some teams. Look up Short, Bob.

[MarquisDeSade]

MLB should drop the facade and get like the EPL - sponsors on the jerseys. 

[Tyler Durden]

This is the most rational argument I've ever heard from the LAC crowd. Good on you.

Do you think some ire needs to be directed at the city leaders who agreed to the deal in the first place. Something to think about.

This is the same argument people have been making for a while.  The stadium was basically free to them and paid for by the tax payer.  That, as much as the past crapiness of the team, is why a lot of people are upset about the Lerners making tons of profit on the team. 

Two questions -

Why should I, as a ticket buyer, pay for a ticket to watch a crappy team?
Why should I, as a taxpayer, have paid for a stadium if all I get is a terrible baseball team? 

[Ray D]

Also, ballclubs are supposed to be like public trusts... you're expected to do good by the community, whereas if this was a regular business... no one would care, as you said.

That's my view. Owning a business is usually about making money. But there are exceptions.  You shouldn't buy a baseball team if your only interest is making money; buy some other business. Built a third Tysons Corner.

[Ray D]

The stadium was basically free to them and paid for by the tax payer. 

What exactly are the economics of that?  They pay rent, right? Does the rent they pay cover expenses (including debt) or is it a sweetheart deal?

[PebbleBall]

MLB should drop the facade and get like the EPL - sponsors on the jerseys. 

Speaking of which, what ever happened to Nationals Park naming rights?  Are they waiting to call it Ted Lerner Field?

[MarquisDeSade]

Speaking of which, what ever happened to Nationals Park naming rights?  Are they waiting to call it Ted Lerner Field?

They should really raise the middle finger to DC and sell it to Comcast.

[The Chief]

They should really raise the middle finger to DC and sell it to Comcast.

Ha, that'd be perfect.

[Lintyfresh85]

They should really raise the middle finger to DC and sell it to Comcast.

I don't get it.

What's the inside joke about Comcast/DC?

[spidernat]

Drama queen. Fielder settles nothing.

Win more than you lose. Come close when you don't make the playoffs. We have been waiting for this since 2005. Address the losing and the acrimony will decrease.

"more sanity" 

[InsaneBoost]

I don't get it.

What's the inside joke about Comcast/DC?

+1

[MarquisDeSade]

I don't get it.

What's the inside joke about Comcast/DC?

Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia.

[Lintyfresh85]

Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia.

OH.

Ha. Yes. That would be ironic.

[The Chief]

Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia.

I actually didn't even know that, I was just laughing because Comcast customer service sucks balls.

[MarquisDeSade]

I actually didn't even know that, I was just laughing because Comcast customer service sucks balls.

To be fair, I'm fairly certain an SAT powerhouse has a Comcast named sports center in the DC vortex. 

[PowerBoater69]

Also, ballclubs are supposed to be like public trusts... you're expected to do good by the community, whereas if this was a regular business... no one would care, as you said.

Public trust is what the old man said when he bought the team, sure sounded like he meant it at the time.

[sportsfan882]

JIM BOWDEN @JimBowdenESPNxm 1m
Omission of the Nats from teams interested in Cespedes either means they question the bat or want to spend on a better FIELDER..as in Prince

[kirubel94]

Kilgore said in a chat yesterday that they are interested(didn't describe the level of interest though.)

[Kevrock]

Nats aren't interested and have never been interested. Close this thread, Chief.

[comish4lif]

What exactly are the economics of that?  They pay rent, right? Does the rent they pay cover expenses (including debt) or is it a sweetheart deal?

Thr Nats pay rent, and I have no idea what a market rate would be, or if the Nats are paying it.

In addition to rent, we fans pay a ballpark district tax on every dollar we spend at the Stadium. Parking, tickets, beer, etc. The District collects on that as well.

I recall an episode back in late '04 when the DC Council was debating the deal, and someone from the Council brought in Deutschebank to make a proposal. When the Council realized Deutschebank wanted to do the project and saw it as a low risk route to a nice revenue stream, the DC Council saw the light. If anyone was going to make money, it should be the District. The District then used their AAA credit to get cheap bonds and finance the project. The bonds are paid off with the Nats rent, the Ballpark tax and another tax that the DC Council levied on small businesses.

[Five Banners]

The latest cautionary yawner from Boswell on Fielder, oozing with "What if it goes badly??!?!?" Natitude:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/prince-fielder-deal-could-cement-nationals-scott-boras-marriage-for-better-or-worse/2012/01/12/gIQAVa4BwP_print.html

He's even cautionary on the MASN deal that Rosethal's major-league source says might "double, triple, or more," saying the deal "might double."  Plus, he weakly allows that crowds and ratings "may" jump with a Fielder signing, hilariously contrasted with his joyous confidence in the O's I linked to the other that the signings of Javy Lopez and Miguel Tejada (and the wished-for signing of an in-his-prime Vladdy) in 2003 "will fill to capacity as soon as Orioles stars reappear."  Spare us the lecture in financial risk, Boz, since you've shown that you'll cast that to the wind before when you're sufficiently excited about a team being big spenders (if only in the case of the O's).

[Five Banners]

Also, such an article warning of the perils of getting involved with Boras clients would've been worthwhile in other cases, especially the Werth signing.  Instead, the Fielder signing is as straightforward as it gets, with a 7-8 year deal for the 27 year old conceivably seeng All-Star production throughout all if not most of the deal.  Sure, in the case of other players, multi-year extensions when they reach their free agency elgibility might be worth foregoing in some instances, but the team would have to pay the piper for Fielder in this case whether Boras or another else was the agent.

[imref]

Jayson Stark looks at the impact of the new labor agreement on off-season spending, noting that the highest paid free agent to be signed by either the Yankees or the Red Sox is Nick Punto at $3 million a year.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings120113/why-yankees-red-sox-spending-big

On Fielder he writes:

The Nationals continue to downplay their interest in Prince Fielder. But one executive who speaks regularly with the Nationals brass is so sure that Washington will be Fielder's eventual destination, he told Rumblings: "Every morning, I wake up and expect to see [that deal] done."

The same exec also said GM Mike Rizzo and ownership won't ever agree to a contract as long as the nine or 10 years that Scott Boras keeps pushing for. The exec said the Nationals would envision a deal of no more than six years. And even then, they would want some sort of protection that might enable them to trade Fielder to the American League if they're convinced he's no longer an adequate defender at first base. Boras, of course, has been locked in on a total no-trade from the beginning.

So with hang-ups that serious, you can understand why the Nationals have been shooting down the Fielder rumors so relentlessly. But never lose sight of Boras' tight working relationship with Rizzo, his rapport with the owners and Fielder's lack of attractive alternatives unless Texas plows back into this picture. If they can overcome the obstacles, the exec says, "I don't know why it WOULDN'T happen."