A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[cp176]

There is a real fascination on this board with the thought of the Red Sox resetting in the near future. i don't tend to think much about these types of things personally. Speaking as a simple fan, you can call it whatever you like, but if I sense that this team is willing to lose so that they think and assume that they can better themselves going forward, I will not be on board. i love the team but that pill would be too much for me to swallow. To not continually be looking to improve right now, goes against my lifelong approach to anything athletically related. Spending money does not always equate to winning for sure but dumping players simply for salary purposes stinks i think. Good decisions have to be made in an attempt to improve.

[notin]

There is a real fascination on this board with the thought of the Red Sox resetting in the near future. i don't tend to think much about these types of things personally. Speaking as a simple fan, you can call it whatever you like, but if I sense that this team is willing to lose so that they think and assume that they can better themselves going forward, I will not be on board. i love the team but that pill would be too much for me to swallow. To not continually be looking to improve right now, goes against my lifelong approach to anything athletically related. Spending money does not always equate to winning for sure but dumping players simply for salary purposes stinks i think. Good decisions have to be made in an attempt to improve.

 

 

The fascination on this board with resetting is because the team President said they were going to. I’m not sure why you keep thinking it originated here.

 

I don’t think the plan is to lose and save money. That might happen, but we have all seen the Sox spend money and lose. However, it does look like part of the plan is to clean up at least some of the mess Dombrowski left behind...

[moonslav59]

There is a real fascination on this board with the thought of the Red Sox resetting in the near future. i don't tend to think much about these types of things personally. Speaking as a simple fan, you can call it whatever you like, but if I sense that this team is willing to lose so that they think and assume that they can better themselves going forward, I will not be on board. i love the team but that pill would be too much for me to swallow. To not continually be looking to improve right now, goes against my lifelong approach to anything athletically related. Spending money does not always equate to winning for sure but dumping players simply for salary purposes stinks i think. Good decisions have to be made in an attempt to improve.

 

It's about rectifying the bad (financial) moves made in the past.

 

We threw money after money and thinking the solution is to keep throwing money seems a bit illogical. Standing pat neither gets us a ring nor budget relief.

 

DD & Henry like maniacs (plus Ben with Pablo & HRam). We might not like to think about it, but a balance was always in the future. The future came quicker than we thought or hoped, but it's here. We can put it off another year, I suppose, and go for one last hurrah, but the balance will come.

[Elktonnick]

It's about rectifying the bad (financial) moves made in the past.

 

We threw money after money and thinking the solution is to keep throwing money seems a bit illogical. Standing pat neither gets us a ring nor budget relief.

 

DD & Henry like maniacs (plus Ben with Pablo & HRam). We might not like to think about it, but a balance was always in the future. The future came quicker than we thought or hoped, but it's here. We can put it off another year, I suppose, and go for one last hurrah, but the balance will come.

 

Sometimes fans forget, to ownership it isn't just about winning, it is also about making money and appreciating the value of the franchise. If the Sox ownership can keep accomplishing the latter two it doesn't matter how much money they spend so long as they turn a profit and the franchise keeps appreciating.

[Bellhorn04]

It's about rectifying the bad (financial) moves made in the past.

 

We threw money after money and thinking the solution is to keep throwing money seems a bit illogical. Standing pat neither gets us a ring nor budget relief.

 

DD & Henry like maniacs (plus Ben with Pablo & HRam). We might not like to think about it, but a balance was always in the future. The future came quicker than we thought or hoped, but it's here. We can put it off another year, I suppose, and go for one last hurrah, but the balance will come.

 

To me it's just about adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

 

Some of the Red Sox current payroll issues have nothing whatever to do with mad spending. They have to do with an increasingly quirky pay system that sees a player like Mookie Betts go from minimum wage to $28 million with the team doing nothing.

[Bellhorn04]

Sometimes fans forget, to ownership it isn't just about winning, it is also about making money and appreciating the value of the franchise. If the Sox ownership can keep accomplishing the latter two it doesn't matter how much money they spend so long as they turn a profit and the franchise keeps appreciating.

 

That's true, but since buying the team JH has demonstrated commitments to spending and winning. Some of that surely comes from a perceived correlation between on-field success and the economic value of 'the brand'.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

To me it's just about adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

 

Some of the Red Sox current payroll issues have nothing whatever to do with mad spending. They have to do with an increasingly quirky pay system that sees a player like Mookie Betts go from minimum wage to $28 million with the team doing nothing.

 

One of the things the Sox did do, which may have soured Mookie over the years, was fight him early-on in arbitration. Ya, both sides always say they understand "it's a business", but you have to think young competitive athletes who have been praised all their lives have a hard time detecting any disrespect by an employer. Money may supersede feelings, but there's a reason a lot of teams strive to compromise with their stars and avoid arbitration hearings...

[S5Dewey]

That's true, but since buying the team JH has demonstrated commitments to spending and winning. Some of that surely comes from a perceived correlation between on-field success and the economic value of 'the brand'.

 

Very true. Owning a franchise is much like owning shares in the stock market. You can look at your portfolio today and say say that it's worth $500,000 but it's only worth that much at the moment. The value will go up or down depending on what you buy or sell.

Owning a MLB franchise is like that too. Although I don't know exactly how much the Boston Red Sox are worth this morning it's more than it would be worth if JH stopped spending money and became more complacent about winning. That approach would eventually reduce the NESN income as well as the income from ticket sales, and when the revenue dried up the worth of the franchise would dip.

 

In short, JH needs for the Sox to remain competitive in order to maintain the value of his brand.

[Bellhorn04]

One of the things the Sox did do, which may have soured Mookie over the years, was fight him early-on in arbitration. Ya, both sides always say they understand "it's a business", but you have to think young competitive athletes who have been praised all their lives have a hard time detecting any disrespect by an employer. Money may supersede feelings, but there's a reason a lot of teams strive to compromise with their stars and avoid arbitration hearings...

 

The arbitration system itself is kind of wonky. Maybe they should just have an arbitrator assign salaries to the players and do away with any negotiations altogether. What's the point of having a process that everyone wants to avoid?

[jacksonianmarch]

Very true. Owning a franchise is much like owning shares in the stock market. You can look at your portfolio today and say say that it's worth $500,000 but it's only worth that much at the moment. The value will go up or down depending on what you buy or sell.

Owning a MLB franchise is like that too. Although I don't know exactly how much the Boston Red Sox are worth this morning it's more than it would be worth if JH stopped spending money and became more complacent about winning. That approach would eventually reduce the NESN income as well as the income from ticket sales, and when the revenue dried up the worth of the franchise would dip.

 

In short, JH needs for the Sox to remain competitive in order to maintain the value of his brand.

 

Brand is worth something, but if you’re losing money due to cost, then your brand suffers as well. Your valuation is based on the ability of the rich to make more money.

[moonslav59]

Very true. Owning a franchise is much like owning shares in the stock market. You can look at your portfolio today and say say that it's worth $500,000 but it's only worth that much at the moment. The value will go up or down depending on what you buy or sell.

Owning a MLB franchise is like that too. Although I don't know exactly how much the Boston Red Sox are worth this morning it's more than it would be worth if JH stopped spending money and became more complacent about winning. That approach would eventually reduce the NESN income as well as the income from ticket sales, and when the revenue dried up the worth of the franchise would dip.

 

In short, JH needs for the Sox to remain competitive in order to maintain the value of his brand.

 

In the history of MLB, has any owner ever lost money when selling a team, even with adjusted dollars to inflation?

[Nick]

It's about rectifying the bad (financial) moves made in the past.

 

We threw money after money and thinking the solution is to keep throwing money seems a bit illogical. Standing pat neither gets us a ring nor budget relief.

 

DD & Henry like maniacs (plus Ben with Pablo & HRam). We might not like to think about it, but a balance was always in the future. The future came quicker than we thought or hoped, but it's here. We can put it off another year, I suppose, and go for one last hurrah, but the balance will come.

 

But you're willing to pay Betts upwards of $50M for one season, almost 25% of luxury tax limit.

[Nick]

Brand is worth something, but if you’re losing money due to cost, then your brand suffers as well. Your valuation is based on the ability of the rich to make more money.

 

your value is based on future cash flow, simple as that.

[Nick]

Bad contracts

 

Chris Sale....this will be year 1 of his new contract with AAV value of around $25M. No one with certainty can tell me that it's a bad deal.

Nathan Eovaldi.....a four year deal with chance to turn around over next three years.

David Price....a signature 7 year deal...3 Division titles and a world series. Lets see what next three years will bring and then evaluate his contract in its entirety

JD Martinez....I'm good with his deal. He's given us exactly what we needed year after Ortiz' departure.

 

Any others?

[Elktonnick]

In the history of MLB, has any owner ever lost money when selling a team, even with adjusted dollars to inflation?

If you read the history of the Yankees I believe CBS sold the Yankees at a loss to Steinbrenner

[oldtimer]

It's about rectifying the bad (financial) moves made in the past.

 

We threw money after money and thinking the solution is to keep throwing money seems a bit illogical. Standing pat neither gets us a ring nor budget relief.

 

DD & Henry like maniacs (plus Ben with Pablo & HRam). We might not like to think about it, but a balance was always in the future. The future came quicker than we thought or hoped, but it's here. We can put it off another year, I suppose, and go for one last hurrah, but the balance will come.

 

I for one will be satisfied if I perc3eive Bloom is making moves that will improve the team continuously and on a long term basis. Undoing the poor Dombrowski decisions will take time and there will be some pain felt to do it.

[S5Dewey]

In the history of MLB, has any owner ever lost money when selling a team, even with adjusted dollars to inflation?

 

Again going to my portfolio comparison, let's say a person has buys $400,000 worth of stock and over two years that investment increased to $500,000. In the next six months the market has crashed a bit and his $400,000 is only worth $450,000.... has he lost money?

 

There's no doubt that JH can sell the franchise for more than he initially paid for it but if he doesn't sell it at the highest value ever has he lost money?

[moonslav59]

A look at the farm...

 

http://news.soxprospects.com/2019/12/fallwinter-league-roundup-rivera-gets.html?fbclid=IwAR2I_SJlR0XvtlsX6G8utvqL18mtDWn0hGo9UpD3uyNGsyUW0bURwSXFkVs

[moonslav59]

But you're willing to pay Betts upwards of $50M for one season, almost 25% of luxury tax limit.

 

Yes, because Betts is easily better than $26%+ of our roster combined.

 

We need to reset, so it's not $75M the first year.

[moonslav59]

Bad contracts

 

Chris Sale....this will be year 1 of his new contract with AAV value of around $25M. No one with certainty can tell me that it's a bad deal.

Nathan Eovaldi.....a four year deal with chance to turn around over next three years.

David Price....a signature 7 year deal...3 Division titles and a world series. Lets see what next three years will bring and then evaluate his contract in its entirety

JD Martinez....I'm good with his deal. He's given us exactly what we needed year after Ortiz' departure.

 

Any others?

 

So, Price is a good deal going forward at $32M, but Betts is not worth $50M?

 

I'll take Betts at $40M a year over Price + Eovaldi in a heartbeat ($59M/yr).

[moonslav59]

Again going to my portfolio comparison, let's say a person has buys $400,000 worth of stock and over two years that investment increased to $500,000. In the next six months the market has crashed a bit and his $400,000 is only worth $450,000.... has he lost money?

 

There's no doubt that JH can sell the franchise for more than he initially paid for it but if he doesn't sell it at the highest value ever has he lost money?

 

No. Stock value only counts when you sell.

 

Plus, Henry has made mega bucks along the way.

 

He will sell the Sox at a massive profit, IMO.

 

[moonslav59]

If you read the history of the Yankees I believe CBS sold the Yankees at a loss to Steinbrenner

 

Okay, is that the only one out of hundreds of sales over the last century?

[moonslav59]

Again going to my portfolio comparison, let's say a person has buys $400,000 worth of stock and over two years that investment increased to $500,000. In the next six months the market has crashed a bit and his $400,000 is only worth $450,000.... has he lost money?

 

There's no doubt that JH can sell the franchise for more than he initially paid for it but if he doesn't sell it at the highest value ever has he lost money?

 

If they all sold, today, this might be close to their profits:

 

http://www.afootinthebox.com/peter/every-mlb-teams-purchase-price-and-value-today

 

Henry would make more than $2 billion in less than 20 years on a $660M investment (a 300% profit).

Edited December 10, 2019 by moonslav59

[Elktonnick]

Okay, is that the only one out of hundreds of sales over the last century?

 

First of all I don't believe there were hundreds of sales over the past century. But over the past hundred years several franchises have lost tons of money and were forced to move due to declining attendance and financial problems. The vaunted LA Dodgers were bankrupt five years ago and were under a MLB mandate to reduce debt before the new ownership group took over. So it does happen perhaps more frequently than one realizes.

[moonslav59]

First of all I don't believe there were hundreds of sales over the past century. But over the past hundred years several franchises have lost tons of money and were forced to move due to declining attendance and financial problems. The vaunted LA Dodgers were bankrupt five years ago and were under a MLB mandate to reduce debt before the new ownership group took over. So it does happen perhaps more frequently than one realizes.

 

Good points. I should know better to ever say "never."

[Nick]

So, Price is a good deal going forward at $32M, but Betts is not worth $50M?

 

I'll take Betts at $40M a year over Price + Eovaldi in a heartbeat ($59M/yr).

 

My subject was on bad contracts that exists on Sox books as of today.

 

You made your point. There's no way I'd pay one individual $40M. We simply have to agree to disagree.

 

Don't get upset Moon.

 

We all want the same thing, another world series title.

[Bellhorn04]

So, Price is a good deal going forward at $32M, but Betts is not worth $50M?

 

I'll take Betts at $40M a year over Price + Eovaldi in a heartbeat ($59M/yr).

 

Price + Eovaldi have an AAV of $48 mill.

[Bellhorn04]

First of all I don't believe there were hundreds of sales over the past century. But over the past hundred years several franchises have lost tons of money and were forced to move due to declining attendance and financial problems. The vaunted LA Dodgers were bankrupt five years ago and were under a MLB mandate to reduce debt before the new ownership group took over. So it does happen perhaps more frequently than one realizes.

 

I don't know the details of the bankruptcy you're referring to, but McCourt bought the Dodgers for $430 million in 2004 and sold for $2 billion in 2012.

 

The value has now grown to $3.2 billion.

[moonslav59]

Price + Eovaldi have an AAV of $48 mill.

 

I'm losing my math skills as I age.

[moonslav59]

My subject was on bad contracts that exists on Sox books as of today.

 

You made your point. There's no way I'd pay one individual $40M. We simply have to agree to disagree.

 

Don't get upset Moon.

 

We all want the same thing, another world series title.

 

I have no issues with anyone that thinks $35-40M is too much to pay anyone.

 

I see the value in spreading the risk to 3-4 players. I'll be sad, if Betts leaves us, but I know we will spend the savings somewhere, and if Bloom is as good as it appears he is at finding lower cost gems, maybe you will be right.

 

I'm not upset. I won't be upset, unless we make poor choices with the savings. That will be years from now.