A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[S5Dewey]

Revenue $380M...40 man payroll $200M....I agree with you that money paid in penalty won't hurt Henry, but losing ability to draft players? That's why this all matters.

 

I'm not sure how that all works. I know that when I go to a ballpark it seems like they are a money printing machine with credit cards flying everywhere. IMHO John Henry runs the team as a hobby but it's not a hobby he wants to lose a lot of money at. He didn't get rich by throwing money away.

 

It's got to cost a lot to maintain the stadiums, pay the minor league players, pay the FO, pay for travel & lodging for the team when on the road, pay for scouting, etc., etc., etc., etc. . I can't imagine a paltry $180M paying for everything other than player's salaries. So I have to ask, is that $380M the entire baseball revenue? I DID hear that the reason they're holding concerts at Fenway now is because the money made from the concerts isn't counted toward baseball revenue so maybe some of the concert money is going toward the team also.

[moonslav59]

I get the concept of not going over the luxury tax limit because you don't want to lose potential draft picks. I will never understand how paying any of these guys the kind of money the free market seems to demand can conceivably be considered anything but frivolous. Only in America.

 

True enough. I guess when you're a multi billionaire, a few million can be called "frivolous".

 

I'd be happy with just a few hundred grand.

[S5Dewey]

I agree. When I use the expression "unlimited budget", I do understand that in most cases there is in fact a budget. Usually I use the expression to just get a little rise out of the folks who want to think that the owners of major franchises - the billionaires amongst us- have to play by normal rules. They don't. I think that they want to win and own successful franchises and it is obvious that most of them are willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to get what they want.

 

That's a point. JH may look at it like someone who buys a house and flips it. After all, the franchise is worth a lot more now than it was when he bought it so it's possible that he sees it as a long-term investment (as well as a hobby).

[moonslav59]

I agree. When I use the expression "unlimited budget", I do understand that in most cases there is in fact a budget. Usually I use the expression to just get a little rise out of the folks who want to think that the owners of major franchises - the billionaires amongst us- have to play by normal rules. They don't. I think that they want to win and own successful franchises and it is obvious that most of them are willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to get what they want.

 

There's a difference if they view the team as a business or a hobby. The billionaires spend what they want for enjoyment, so it might seem obvious they'd want to spend whatever it takes to enjoy their shiny toy and watch it win championships. Plus, there's some fame involved with owning champions.

 

Most really rich people got to where they are not by spending big to look good or be happy, but by keeping expenses low and looking for more and more ways to make more and more money. Just because profits are extremely high, doesn't mean one is obliged to spend more.

Edited February 13, 2017 by moonslav59

[cp176]

True enough. I guess when you're a multi billionaire, a few million can be called "frivolous".

 

I'd be happy with just a few hundred grand.

 

In all honesty - and with no attempt to be a wise ass - I would like to know what he is worth and how he actually makes his money. I know that he was and maybe still is an investment guy. If he in fact is a multi billionaire, it is very likely that he isn't depending on what is made or lost at fenway park to pay for dinner. One billion invested by someone like him turns in a neat hundreds (s) of millions of dollars per year. More than enough to pay for all franchises and toys that he might have and still have a little left over. I think more importantly is the fact that when and if he decides to ever sell the Red Sox, he will make his big money then. Personally I don't think professional athletes and entertainers in general are worth the kind of money they make to today. The way we treat them says something about our society in general. Don't get me wrong though - I enjoy being entertained and I am glad that the Red Sox are owned by someone with an almost unlimited budget. lol

[cp176]

There's a difference if they view the team as a business or a hobby. The billionaires spend what they want for enjoyment, so it might seem obvious they'd want to spend whatever it takes to enjoy their shiny toy and watch it win championships. Plus, there's some fame involved with owning champions.

 

Most really rich people got to where they are not by spending big to look good or be happy, but by keeping expenses low and looking for more and more ways to make more and more money. Just because profits are extremely high, doesn't mean one is obliged to spend more.

 

 

This I agree with.

[S5Dewey]

Personally I don't think professional athletes and entertainers in general are worth the kind of money they make to today. The way we treat them says something about our society in general. Don't get me wrong though - I enjoy being entertained and I am glad that the Red Sox are owned by someone with an almost unlimited budget. lol

 

You're preaching to the choir when you say that to me. If a person discovered an immediate cure for every type of cancer he wouldn't make as much money in his lifetime as many professional athletes (or actors or entertainers of any kind). And don't even get me started on the people whom we're trusting to educate our kids.

 

IMHO there's something wrong with that.

[cp176]

There is a new commercial that I saw for the first time last night. I think that it was a GE commercial and dealt with the concept of honoring a pioneer female engineer. Someone who actually did something for society that deserves to be honored and paid appropriately for doing. I'm probably not going to listen to anyone from the entertainment industry when I have to decide upon what really is and is not important in the world.

[moonslav59]

You're preaching to the choir when you say that to me. If a person discovered an immediate cure for every type of cancer he wouldn't make as much money in his lifetime as many professional athletes (or actors or entertainers of any kind). And don't even get me started on the people whom we're trusting to educate our kids.

 

IMHO there's something wrong with that.

 

Well said. Our priorities are messed up.

 

Some countries have laws where the top person in a company can't make more than 20 times the lowest guy. That makes some sense to me.

 

You have to keep the incentive to make more for doing more or being smarter, but how much is just too damn much?

 

It's sick how worker productivity has risen, while their pay has fallen, and those who just "invest" or "speculate" make millions and billions.

[Eddy Ballgame]

You're preaching to the choir when you say that to me. If a person discovered an immediate cure for every type of cancer he wouldn't make as much money in his lifetime as many professional athletes (or actors or entertainers of any kind). And don't even get me started on the people whom we're trusting to educate our kids.

 

IMHO there's something wrong with that.

 

A little off topic, but when you have a world population approaching 8 billion on a planet that supposedly has the natural resources to ideally support 4 billion, I'm not so sure how interested a lot people in high places are in finding that cure for cancer.

[cp176]

Well said. Our priorities are messed up.

 

Some countries have laws where the top person in a company can't make more than 20 times the lowest guy. That makes some sense to me.

 

You have to keep the incentive to make more for doing more or being smarter, but how much is just too damn much?

 

It's sick how worker productivity has risen, while their pay has fallen, and those who just "invest" or "speculate" make millions and billions.

 

I'm really not jealous of the people who invest their money wisely at all. That is an individual choice. I just have a personal gripe when it comes to how much money people who entertain us are paid. I am all about capitalism but I bet my very good doctor would like to sign just one of those 20 million dollar contracts.

[cp176]

A little off topic, but when you have a world population approaching 8 billion on a planet that supposedly has the natural resources to ideally support 4 billion, I'm not so sure how interested a lot people in high places are in finding that cure for cancer.

 

 

another good point.

[a700hitter]

Only 3 or 4% of the earth's land surface is inhabited by humans.

[S5Dewey]

A little off topic, but when you have a world population approaching 8 billion on a planet that supposedly has the natural resources to ideally support 4 billion, I'm not so sure how interested a lot people in high places are in finding that cure for cancer.

 

That's cold. But true.

 

Dan Brown's book "Inferno" which has now been made into a Tom Hanks movie deals with that. I won't spoil it for you by telling you how it ends.

[Eddy Ballgame]

That's cold. But true.

 

Dan Brown's book "Inferno" which has now been made into a Tom Hanks movie deals with that. I won't spoil it for you by telling you how it ends.

 

I've read all of his books. Good stuff. I agree that it's cold, but a lot people that are more intelligent than most of us will tell you that there may come a point where nature will correct itself if the population keeps growing as people continue to live longer.

[S5Dewey]

I've read all of his books. Good stuff. I agree that it's cold, but a lot people that are more intelligent than most of us will tell you that there may come a point where nature will correct itself if the population keeps growing as people continue to live longer.

I know... I was wondering if ebola was going to be the culprit, and it may have been were it not for medical science. Thus far we've been able to stay one step ahead of Mother Nature but it can't last forever.

 

I'm thinking that this may be a lot more interesting to talk about in the abstract than when it actually happens.

 

I've read all of Brown's books too. I'm now pawing the ground expectantly waiting for his new one, "Origin" to be released in October. It's been a long wait!

[cp176]

Only 3 or 4% of the earth's land surface is inhabited by humans.

 

I don't think that I could live farther north though.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I know... I was wondering if ebola was going to be the culprit, and it may have been were it not for medical science. Thus far we've been able to stay one step ahead of Mother Nature but it can't last forever.

 

I'm thinking that this may be a lot more interesting to talk about in the abstract than when it actually happens.

 

I've read all of Brown's books too. I'm now pawing the ground expectantly waiting for his new one, "Origin" to be released in October. It's been a long wait!

 

One step ahead works for me. Can't wait for Origin, either. Going to cause some serious controversy as usual, but this one more so I think.

[Dojji]

A little off topic, but when you have a world population approaching 8 billion on a planet that supposedly has the natural resources to ideally support 4 billion, I'm not so sure how interested a lot people in high places are in finding that cure for cancer.

 

I find that 4 billion number incredibly suspect. We have the ability and technolocy to comfortably feed everyone in the world, three times over. If we built the best infrastructure we have technology for, everywhere it was needed I'm convinced that would be more like 15 times over. Hell, we're paying farmers NOT to grow food so we don't drive the prices so low that inefficient third world sharecroppers go under. If we got really serious about farming, this planet could produce several times the food it does now, and what it produces now would be more than enough if our distribution network was efficient.

 

A static number like that ignores the fact that we've progressively gotten better and better at finding ways to make this planet support more of us. At this point the only limiting factor I'm truly aware is the global water economy. If we were better about developing the undeveloped parts of the world nobody would go to bed hungry tomorrow.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I find that 4 billion number incredibly suspect. We have the ability and technolocy to comfortably feed everyone in the world, three times over. If we built the best infrastructure we have technology for, everywhere it was needed I'm convinced that would be more like 15 times over. Hell, we're paying farmers NOT to grow food so we don't drive the prices so low that inefficient third world sharecroppers go under. If we got really serious about farming, this planet could produce several times the food it does now, and what it produces now would be more than enough if our distribution network was efficient.

 

A static number like that ignores the fact that we've progressively gotten better and better at finding ways to make this planet support more of us. At this point the only limiting factor I'm truly aware is the global water economy. If we were better about developing the undeveloped parts of the world nobody would go to bed hungry tomorrow.

 

I could literally counterpoint every single thing that you mention here, but this isn't the forum to do so. Let's agree to disagree and get back to baseball.

[cp176]

I could literally counterpoint every single thing that you mention here, but this isn't the forum to do so. Let's agree to disagree and get back to baseball.

 

How about this headline that I just read - What's wrong with Wright? Good one- He says nothing structurally wrong.

[moonslav59]

"What's Wrom with Pom?"

[Nick]

How about this headline that I just read - What's wrong with Wright? Good one- He says nothing structurally wrong.

 

That's the problem with fat knuckleball pitchers.....oops did I say that?

[cp176]

"What's Wrom with Pom?"

 

I like mine better. I have seen mine. I have not seen your headline. I also don't have issues with the Pom trade. I wish he was healthy for sure but I still think we wind up with the better deal ultimately.

[jacksonianmarch]

If Espinosa hits his potential, then you will rue the day you dealt him for a converted reliever with a history of arm problems

[moonslav59]

If Espinosa hits his potential, then you will rue the day you dealt him for a converted reliever with a history of arm problems

 

This is the deal I have the biggest beef with. I realize Espi is just potential value, but his upside is so damn high, I shudder at the thought of what we might have lost.

[moonslav59]

That's the problem with fat knuckleball pitchers.....oops did I say that?

 

If you were referring to Wake. Wake was an iron man.

[Fisk]

If Espinosa hits his potential, then you will rue the day you dealt him for a converted reliever with a history of arm problems

 

That's a very big if.,

[cp176]

If Espinosa hits his potential, then you will rue the day you dealt him for a converted reliever with a history of arm problems

 

rue the day - really? I hope the kid does reach his potential. I wouldn't bet on it but I hope that he does. My guess is that the Red Sox will be just fine regardless .

[moonslav59]

I've been super high on Espi since the start.

 

People still talk about the Bagwell trade, so I think there is a chance we'll be talking about this trade for many years to come.