Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:44 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5891
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
According to Cot's contracts, the Los Angeles Dodgers have committed the following sums to 3 of their top pitchers for 2013:

Grienke: $17M
Billingsley: $11M
Kershaw: $11M

That is a total of $39M for 3 pitchers. With the Dodgers receiving $250M in local TV revenue alone, they have committed 15.6% of their local TV revenue to their 3 top pitchers. They still have $211M in local TV revenue to spend on the remaining roster slots.

According to Cot's contracts, the Pirates will be paying the following sums to 2 of their top pitchers for 2013:

Burnett: $8M
Rodriguez: $8.5M

That is a total of $16.5M for 2 pitchers. With the Bucs receiving $20M in local TV revenue, they have committed 82.5% of their local TV revenue total to their top 2 pitchers. That leaves $3.5M of local TV revenue to spend on other players.

So . . let's add Gonzalez's $21M in 2013 and Kemp's $20M in 2013 to the Dodgers' equation. Adding those salaries to the pitchers mentioned above and the Dodgers have committed 32% of their local TV revenue in 2013 to Kershaw, Greinke, Billingsley, Kemp and Gonzalez.

Let's add McCutchen to the equation for the Bucs. They are paying him $4.5 million in 2013. Adding Cutch's salary uses up every last dime of the Bucs' local TV revenue. For 3 players. The Dodgers still have $170M to spend on 19 roster slots before they have to "dip" into ticket sales, merchandising revenue, national TV revenue, etc.

The system is broke. Plain and simple.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
The Dodgers have 8 SP making big money in 2013 - Kershaw ($11), Grienke ($17), Beckett ($15.75), Billingsley ($11), Lilly ($12), Capuano ($6+$1 buyout), Harang ($7+$2 buyout), Ryu ($2.5+$5 bonus). Absurd. $90.25 million for 8 SP, plus $7.5 for Brandon League.

Then add in AGonz ($21), Crawford ($20), Kemp ($20), HanRam ($15.5), Ethier ($13.5), and Uribe ($8). That's 15 players making nearly as much as our top 3 (Burnett, Wandy, and Martin). Those 15 players will make $195 million in 2013 and they have a few other guys in the $4 range pushing them into the old Yankee territory.

Now, they will have to trade Capuano and Harang, but still.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
How much will the Pirates receive in revenue sharing money?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
J_C_Steel wrote:
How much will the Pirates receive in revenue sharing money?


Around $50 million, with a big increase next year to the $75 million range.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:58 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 921
This is the definition of "small market" teams. Fans like to talk about ticket sales and attendance but the real payroll comes from these TV deals.

Even if the Pirates get their 50 to 75 million in revenue sharing, it's doesn't help when teams with 200+ million in TV deals are inflating salaries.

People complained about Martin receiving the deal he got but if you look at his numbers that is the going rate. Same with Barmes last year.

Veteran bench players cost 2-4 million per.....that's just the way it is.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5891
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
How much will the Pirates receive in revenue sharing money?


Define "revenue sharing."

Are you referring to money transferred ("shared") to the low revenue teams from the high revenue teams? Or . . . are you referring to the sharing of revenue equally among the teams by virtue of the national TV contract, merchandise sales, etc.? Or both?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5181
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
How much will the Pirates receive in revenue sharing money?


Define "revenue sharing."

Are you referring to money transferred ("shared") to the low revenue teams from the high revenue teams? Or . . . are you referring to the sharing of revenue equally among the teams by virtue of the national TV contract, merchandise sales, etc.? Or both?


In line with your original post, I'm referring to money that the Pirates get and the Dodgers do not get.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5891
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I'm pretty sure that "revenue" received by the Pirates (and Royals, A's, Brewers, Marlins, Rays, etc) that is "shared" by the Yankees, Angels, Rangers, Dodgers, etc. is significantly less than the number quoted by Barrys. I think that he is quoting a "revenue sharing" number that includes national TV revenues and merchandise revenues.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
No. 9 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that "revenue" received by the Pirates (and Royals, A's, Brewers, Marlins, Rays, etc) that is "shared" by the Yankees, Angels, Rangers, Dodgers, etc. is significantly less than the number quoted by Barrys. I think that he is quoting a "revenue sharing" number that includes national TV revenues and merchandise revenues.


Correct, my number include money that all teams get. The robin hood money is much less. Of course many expect these cable deals to be added into revenue sharing in the next CBA.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2175
Barrys Dopers wrote:
Of course many expect these cable deals to be added into revenue sharing in the next CBA.

Don't be so sure. The small market owners have to stand united on some of these issues before baseball becomes a ten team league.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: A little spending perspective
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5516
Location: Pittsburgh
No. 9 wrote:
According to Cot's contracts, the Los Angeles Dodgers have committed the following sums to 3 of their top pitchers for 2013:

Grienke: $17M
Billingsley: $11M
Kershaw: $11M

That is a total of $39M for 3 pitchers. With the Dodgers receiving $250M in local TV revenue alone, they have committed 15.6% of their local TV revenue to their 3 top pitchers. They still have $211M in local TV revenue to spend on the remaining roster slots.

According to Cot's contracts, the Pirates will be paying the following sums to 2 of their top pitchers for 2013:

Burnett: $8M
Rodriguez: $8.5M

That is a total of $16.5M for 2 pitchers. With the Bucs receiving $20M in local TV revenue, they have committed 82.5% of their local TV revenue total to their top 2 pitchers. That leaves $3.5M of local TV revenue to spend on other players.

So . . let's add Gonzalez's $21M in 2013 and Kemp's $20M in 2013 to the Dodgers' equation. Adding those salaries to the pitchers mentioned above and the Dodgers have committed 32% of their local TV revenue in 2013 to Kershaw, Greinke, Billingsley, Kemp and Gonzalez.

Let's add McCutchen to the equation for the Bucs. They are paying him $4.5 million in 2013. Adding Cutch's salary uses up every last dime of the Bucs' local TV revenue. For 3 players. The Dodgers still have $170M to spend on 19 roster slots before they have to "dip" into ticket sales, merchandising revenue, national TV revenue, etc.

The system is broke. Plain and simple.

Cheap Nutting.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Rotten_Scoundrel, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits