Carlos Correa to Mets - 12 Years, $315 Million

[owbc]

20 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Being upset at the Brewers for not spending like the big markets. It's akin to yelling at a cloud.

The majority of MLB fanbases are mad at their owners for not spending enough right now. Brewers fans seem to have their anger rightfully directed at the system opposed to their owner.

One rumor is that MLB is allowing or even encouraging Cohen to spend like crazy in order to increase support for a salary cap in the next CBA. That may work, but we still have not reached the level of inequality that triggered the salary cap to be implemented in the mid-2000s. At that time the Yankees were spending something like 4x the median payroll. The Mets are not even at 3x yet. 

 

[Sixtolezcano]

1. 30 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

   The philosophy isn't gonna get you to the promised land as a Brewer fan.

    I guess then you’re ok with never winning a WS in your lifetime (or if your lucky maybe once).

[FidoMcCokefiend]

4 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Being upset at the Brewers for not spending like the big markets. It's akin to yelling at a cloud.

I never said I was upset. I'm very comfortable compartmentalizing what I would like out of my sports fandom (winning titles), and knowing that the owners of said teams often have different goals (increasing their wealth). 

I simply said I want the sports teams I root for to buy great players in order to win a championship, which you stated won't get me to the promised land as a Brewer fan.

So, again, what philosophy do I need to subscribe to? A hard cap? Owners lockout? Do any of these philosophies mean the Brewers still won't have to compete for talent with others? 

[Sixtolezcano]

1 hour ago, FidoMcCokefiend said:

I am fine with seeing 29 of 30 (chump edit) of MLB Franchises fall on their face as I only care about Milwaukee winning, but I will never understand the hate when other owners spend money on good players and try to win.  Isn't trying to win the point here? 

Actually, the primary reason for owning a MLB team is to make as much money as humanly possible. I believe that winning a WS accounts for < 5% of the point in the owners perspective.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

3 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

Actually, the primary reason for owning a MLB team is to make as much money as humanly possible. I believe that winning a WS accounts for < 5% of the point in the owners perspective.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. It would seem that there are much better investments a billionaire could make than buying a professional sports franchise if their only goal is making more money.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

9 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

1.  I guess then you’re ok with never winning a WS in your lifetime (or if your lucky maybe once).

I'm not really ok with it. But its reality. And it isn't changing as long as the current economic structure of MLB is in place.

[Axman59]

5 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

...the Mets have to be desperate to shed some payroll.

I'm pretty certain Steve Cohen doesn't give a (bleep) about shedding payroll for 2023. Cohen could pay Escobar's contract by digging around in his couch cushions.

[Sixtolezcano]

4 hours ago, jjgott said:

 

1 minute ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. It would seem that there are much better investments a billionaire could make than buying a professional sports franchise if their only goal is making more money.

As I stated not their only goal. But with billionaires that enjoy baseball, have a large ego, love to see their name in the media and have name recognition you must agree that it is a great vehicle.

[Sixtolezcano]

Just now, Axman59 said:

I'm pretty certain Steve Cohen doesn't give a (bleep) about shedding payroll for 2023.

Or for shedding payroll for 2024 - 2044 ( unless he losses most of his wealth).

[superfly]

At the risk of blowing up the site with a nuke, there’s nobody stopping Attanasio from joining in on spending some money except Attanasio, unless there’s a rule somewhere that I’m missing. It’s a choice of these team owners like the Brewers, Twins, etc to not spend money.

[monty57]

I think Attanasio learned not to try to outspend the other guy. With the way baseball salaries are set up (pre-arby, arby, FA), small revenue teams have to load up on young talent that they can control for less-than-market prices for six years. 
 

That means we have to rely on our good prospects, and have to trade some guys we like when they start getting expensive. It’s just the reality of baseball under the current system. 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

2 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

I'm pretty certain Steve Cohen doesn't give a (bleep) about shedding payroll for 2023. Cohen could pay Escobar's contract by digging around in his couch cushions.

Good point. It could very well come down to doing a respected veteran a solid and dealing him to a team that would feature him, rather than making him languish on the bench as a utility guy on a super team.

[Axman59]

I think billionaire's like to own major sports teams for the exclusivity and cool factor. The asset appreciation is a nice bonus but not the main motivation.

[Sixtolezcano]

Just now, superfly said:

At the risk of blowing up the site with a nuke, there’s nobody stopping Attanasio from joining in on spending some money except Attanasio, unless there’s a rule somewhere that I’m missing. It’s a choice of these team owners like the Brewers, Twins, etc to not spend money.

Exactly, and over the past decade+, he has shown everyone that he is not one of those owners willing to do that to no one’s surprise considering his primary business.

[homer]

1 minute ago, Axman59 said:

I think billionaire's like to own major sports teams for the exclusivity and cool factor. The asset appreciation is a nice bonus but not the main motivation.

Except for the Ricketts family

[sveumrules]

2 minutes ago, superfly said:

At the risk of blowing up the site with a nuke, there’s nobody stopping Attanasio from joining in on spending some money except Attanasio, unless there’s a rule somewhere that I’m missing. It’s a choice of these team owners like the Brewers, Twins, etc to not spend money.

Attanasio doesn't own 100% of the Brewers. He has other shareholders to answer to.

He also has considerably less personal wealth to draw from than Cohen or the Twins owners.

[Axman59]

5 minutes ago, superfly said:

At the risk of blowing up the site with a nuke, there’s nobody stopping Attanasio from joining in on spending some money except Attanasio, unless there’s a rule somewhere that I’m missing. It’s a choice of these team owners like the Brewers, Twins, etc to not spend money.

He absolutely can. But when you suggest that here the MA apologists claim that no one does that and that player salaries have to be paid for by direct baseball revenue.

I think it's pretty clear the Mets baseball revenue (ticket sales, tv and radio revenue, etc.) is not going to cover these payrolls. Cohen will need to bring in money from other ventures or borrow.

[monty57]

1 minute ago, superfly said:

At the risk of blowing up the site with a nuke, there’s nobody stopping Attanasio from joining in on spending some money except Attanasio, unless there’s a rule somewhere that I’m missing. It’s a choice of these team owners like the Brewers, Twins, etc to not spend money.

I don’t think that’s true. There are a handful of teams in large media markets who can spend hundreds of millions on payroll and still make a boatload of profit. There are a bunch of middle-market teams who can occasionally bump up payroll somewhere close to the luxury tax when they’re going all in. 
 

Then there are the small revenue teams who just can’t spend that kind of money. If the Brewers spent to the luxury tax, the ownership group would lose $100M, and I highly doubt they keep that in their bank accounts. It would bankrupt them and the franchise. 

[Axman59]

2 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Attanasio doesn't own 100% of the Brewers. He has other shareholders to answer to.

He also has considerably less personal wealth to draw from than Cohen or the Twins owners.

Does he own over 50%? That's generally all it takes to make your own decisions.

[monty57]

2 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

Does he own over 50%? That's generally all it takes to make your own decisions.

It’s a limited partnership, not a C corp. 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

3 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

He absolutely can. But when you suggest that here the MA apologists claim that no one does that and that player salaries have to be paid for by direct baseball revenue.

I think it's pretty clear the Mets baseball revenue (ticket sales, tv and radio revenue, etc.) is not going to cover these payrolls. Cohen will need to bring in money from other ventures or borrow.

I don't know that there are "MA apologists" here so much as there are fans who understand the reality of the situation. MA has a long enough track record that if you are expecting him to go on a free agent spending spree and jack payroll up to $200 million, you may as well, once again, be yelling at a cloud.

[superfly]

2 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I don’t think that’s true. There are a handful of teams in large media markets who can spend hundreds of millions on payroll and still make a boatload of profit. There are a bunch of middle-market teams who can occasionally bump up payroll somewhere close to the luxury tax when they’re going all in. 
 

Then there are the small revenue teams who just can’t spend that kind of money. If the Brewers spent to the luxury tax, the ownership group would lose $100M, and I highly doubt they keep that in their bank accounts. It would bankrupt them and the franchise. 

If I’m ever buying a baseball team it’s not so I can languish around the wild card line for 20 years. I want to win. Nobody’s saying MA should drop 250 million a year on payroll, but if he really wanted to extend Burnes and/or Woodruff he’ll find a way. That’s what rich people do.

[sveumrules]

5 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

He absolutely can. But when you suggest that here the MA apologists claim that no one does that and that player salaries have to be paid for by direct baseball revenue.

I think it's pretty clear the Mets baseball revenue (ticket sales, tv and radio revenue, etc.) is not going to cover these payrolls. Cohen will need to bring in money from other ventures or borrow.

Right, and at this point Cohen appears to be the only MLB owner willing to take this approach.

If the other 29 ownership groups followed suit, the Brewers would still lag behind because MA's personal wealth (much like the Brewers TV contract and market share) is at the bottom of the league.

[Sixtolezcano]

6 minutes ago, superfly said:

If I’m ever buying a baseball team it’s not so I can languish around the wild card line for 20 years. I want to win. Nobody’s saying MA should drop 250 million a year on payroll, but if he really wanted to extend Burnes and/or Woodruff he’ll find a way. That’s what rich people do.

That is why it’s a massively rich man’s game. MA et. al. obviously doesn’t have the means or maybe the willingness to do that like other owners in New York or Los Angeles, etc.

[homer]

I'd be willing to bet Cohen can spend $200 million in salary a year and still turn a profit even if the team stinks.

The Dodgers get $239 million a year just in TV revenue.