Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

[Centerfield]

Says David Roth at Deadspin.



https://deadspin.com/your-favorite-baseball-team-can-afford-any-free-agent-i-1830890838https://deadspin.com/your-favorite-baseball-team-can-afford-any-free-agent-i-1830890838

You probably also know this: since Alex Rodriguez signed his then-record 10-year, $252 million contract with the Rangers back in 2001, Major League Baseball's revenues have more than doubled even when adjusted for inflation. Team payrolls, after a similar adjustment, have gone up by less than 40 percent; the richest contract in the game right now is the 14-year, $325 million deal Giancarlo Stanton signed in 2014.

Basically, every team has the money to spend. But they have just as many excuses to just pocket it and not invest the revenue. I guess this goes a long way into figuring out how a relatively small city like Boston can lead the majors in payroll. While some teams that play in larger markets come in middle of the pack.

[Centerfield]

According to this list, Boston is the #7 TV market in the US.



https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-marketshttps://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets



It is the 21st largest city by population.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_populationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population



I would imagine Boston benefits from the relatively dense population in its surrounding area. So 21st is probably misleading. But there is no logical reason why a team from Boston should be able to outspend any NY team.



NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people.

[smg58]

This quote cracked me up:



"The Red Sox, one of two teams to go over the cap, will pay a penalty of a little under $12 million and slide back slightly in the June Draft. As Matt Collins points out at Over The Monster, that's $6 million less than they paid Pablo Sandoval not to play for them and roughly what they paid defective Cuban phenom Rusney Castillo to rust over and hit singles in Pawtucket. Boston also won the World Series, you will recall."



I'm not sure what the league is getting at. Their players might not be old enough to remember 1994, but presumably they do. And plenty of fans do as well.

[nymr83]

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people.

what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England?

[smg58]

Actually the most surprising thing about the article is the Yankees' apparent willingness to play along, even as the Red Sox make a mockery of the league-wide austerity.

[Centerfield]

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England?

Not sure. But the first list suggests they capture a large audience beyond the city as they are #7 market in the US.



But it's hard to imagine any surrounding area making up the difference in population. NYC has 8.6 million people. Let's be conservative and allocate 70% of that market to the MFY. That still leaves 2.58 million for the Mets. And that's not counting LI, NJ, upstate NY and parts of CT.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

This topic title reads like one of those lolcat memes. Mets Can Has Harper Home Runs LOL Thanx

[Centerfield]

Yikes.



All your typos are belong to us.

[Edgy MD]

Territorial exclusivity is un-American boochit, as is so much of MLB's cartel operation is. And I have no problem believing the Sox benefit as much from it as anybody else.

[metsmarathon]

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England? Not sure. But the first list suggests they capture a large audience beyond the city as they are #7 market in the US. But it's hard to imagine any surrounding area making up the difference in population. NYC has 8.6 million people. Let's be conservative and allocate 70% of that market to the MFY. That still leaves 2.58 million for the Mets. And that's not counting LI, NJ, upstate NY and parts of CT.

the entire population of new england (minus connecticut) (~9M) is slightly more than the population of the 5 boroughs of new york city (~8.6M).



lets do some math. for the purposes of this exercise, let's consider all of new york state to be fans of either the yankees or the mets. we'll add in 1/2 of connecticut, and 2/3 of jersey. which is unfair because jersey is too good of a state too have so many of us fall sway to the phillies. but whatever - it's an approximation, and i'm trying to be overly conservative...



new york has 19M people. CT has 3.5M and NJ has 7M. of that, we allocate 1.75M and 4.7M respectively to the NY market. total available fanbase of 25.4M. applying the 70/30 split above, the mets should have about 7.6M to draw from. it's a bit shy of the 10.75 i'm allocating to boston, and far short of the 17.8M i'm giving the yankees. but it still a big enough number that the mets should be pretty big players in the payroll games. also, it goes without saying that as the mets fortunes improve, their share of the new york market can grow as well.



in other words. spend spend spend.

[Centerfield]

Right.



Anyway, back to the original article. The author is stating that every team is flush with cash and not spending is an election, not something out of their hands. It would be interesting if true. Kind of like a watered down collusion.



One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

[A Boy Named Seo]

Eh, probably not. The tax for first-year offenders is 20% for every dollar over the threshold, which is $206M this year. A $400M payroll would be $80M in taxes alone and as we know, billionaires HATE taxes. But your point's not lost. Certain owners splash the tax cash in the NBA. The Dodgers have exceeded it multiple times and dance around it nowadays like Fred Astaire. If you were already at $206M and needed a $12M guy you thought would put you over the top, a owner that wants to win NOW!!!! will prob take the hit on the $2.4M tax.

[Gwreck]

Ken Rosenthal has a column at The Athletic today about the Mets and how they should sign Harper or Machado.

Such a move would require moxie, creativity and, most importantly, cold hard cash. But if this truly is a new era for the Mets, they should be showing more interest in Harper and Machado than say, the A's and Rays. They should be trying to exploit an opportunity that is available only because Harper and Machado are lingering on the market, and because virtually every team in baseball is acting as if they are carrying infectious diseases. A week ago, when Van Wagenen challenged the rest of the NL East to “come get us,” it came off as false bravado. Go get Harper or Machado, and the GM can utter those words in earnest. And it would be no hollow threat.

[Centerfield]

And was immediately met with all sorts of spin articles from the local guys. It's crazy how the Wilpons control the narrative with some of these guys.

[Edgy MD]

I imagine they've shown more interest than the A's and the Rays. And I feel certain in saying that virtually every team in baseball isn't acting as if those two players are carrying infections diseases.



Signing such players can be a high-risk proposition, so teams want to drive as hard a bargain as possible, and they also know that the stupid luxury tax means they'll be paying double for a big chunk of those huge contracts.



But nonetheless, teams have pursued these guys, and some of them have pursued aggressively.

[Gwreck]

=Centerfield post_id=1782 time=1548381701 user_id=65]
And was immediately met with all sorts of spin articles from the local guys. It's crazy how the Wilpons control the narrative with some of these guys.

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: and they also know that the stupid luxury tax means they'll be paying double for a big chunk of those huge contracts.

Good thing the Mets are nowhere near that threshold, and still easily under it even if they signed one of the two to a $30M/year contract.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The luxury tax is a big scam that benefits the owners by giving them an excuse to keep payroll down, which is what baseball owners and all employers, in fact, have strived to do since time immemorial. It's how the world works. It's a penalty that isn't really much of a penalty at all. The data indicates that teams exceeding the luxury tax win more games and make more money. So there's every incentive to outspend opponents. If they're not even though they can or should is consistent with a theory of collusion. Also, the teams that exceed or have exceeded the luxury tax in the past tend to be the wealthiest teams in the game. Obviously. These teams make in the neighborhood of a half a billion dollars a year and can easily afford to pay the game's highest salaries. Yet the penalties for exceeding the tax are peanuts compared to baseball's overall revenue situation.

[Gwreck]

I think the point was that the luxury tax, without even considering its problems, is not a valid excuse for not signing one of these players.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Gwreck post_id=1796 time=1548393372 user_id=56]
I think the point was that the luxury tax, without even considering its problems, is not a valid excuse for not signing one of these players.

[smg58]

=Centerfield post_id=583 time=1546642046 user_id=65]One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

[Fman99]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardmegdal/2019/01/24/bryce-harper-manny-machado-and-jeff-wilpons-latest-new-york-mets-payroll-claims/#111de17069e3Forbes is singing the same song and I can't see the fault in their argument.

[bmfc1]

Jeffy whined, "I don't know how many teams have two $30 million players”. He's referring to Cespedes' $29M contract. The Nationals have two: Scherzer and Strasburg. They offered Harper $30M so that would have been 3. Oh yeah, they don't have their own cable network and the Mets do.



And the Mets are getting insurance money for Cespedes' injury. Per Puma: "In addition, the Mets won't be on the hook for Cespedes' full salary this season with insurance covering a significant portion of his payout as he rehabs from surgery to remove calcifications from both heels."

[batmagadanleadoff]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardmegdal/2019/01/24/bryce-harper-manny-machado-and-jeff-wilpons-latest-new-york-mets-payroll-claims/#111de17069e3Forbes is singing the same song and I can't see the fault in their argument.

Hey, that's our old friend, Howie Megdal.

[Lefty Specialist]

=smg58 post_id=1803 time=1548420395 user_id=62]
=Centerfield post_id=583 time=1546642046 user_id=65]One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

[Centerfield]

I've come to the realization that Fred's infatuation with the Yankees isn't really about winning. He's not jealous of their winning. If he were, he'd do what the Red Sox do, which is spend more and beat them. He's angry that they spend. That they're ruining it for the rest of the owners.



It's hard to pretend like you have no money when the guy next door is spending like he prints the stuff.

[RealityChuck]

I think the big issue is not that the Wilpons are afraid of spending, but that they're wary of it. Most of the big contracts they handed out turned out to be busts (the exceptions are Beltran and Piazza). But big contracts to Cespedes, Wright, Santana, Martinez, Bonilla, Bay, and others turned out to be a lot of wasted money as people went on the DL. Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

[kcmets]

=RealityChuck post_id=1824 time=1548440168 user_id=82]Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

[Frayed Knot]

Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again. I have to disagree with the 'quite rightly' part. It's NYC (the tri-state area), they make money hands over fist when a winning team is on the field and the stadium is rockin'.

But there's the "if they win" part which, because it isn't assured by signing player X, is why, as Chuck says, they're wary of that level of spending - and especially so in the post-Madoff era.

The biggest profit incentive from owning an MLB team isn't that the team finishes in the black each year just by opening the doors but rather via the increase in the value of the franchise over time.

But in those years that turn up in the red the partners have to cover the shortfall and, after having begged and borrowed just to tide them through much of the last decade, they certainly don't have

the liquid backup they once had and are therefore more gun-shy about taking such a plunge.

There's a difference between: 'Great if it works, disappointed if it doesn't' vs 'Great if it works, lose further control of the team if it doesn't'

[Frayed Knot]

...

Edited January 25, 2019 by Guest