Dipre
-
Posts
20,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Dipre
-
The fact that it's absolutely impossible for the net stadium income (tickets) to be higher than marketing, use of brand management and other sports-related activities. The revenue stream has to be consistent with the valuation breakdown of the team. It's statistically impossible for it to happen otherwise.
-
First one. The point of mentioning it is that it doesn't include revenue from either marketing or other sports-related activities.
-
Because what the owners don't want the players' union is exactly how much of that revenue they are pocketing. Actual stadium expenses, as well as how much of the revenue from marketing and use of the sports brand are not completely detailed.
-
There is a threshold between as to how much the team can spend while maximizing profit. The Boston Red Sox, as en entity, is a product, to maximize their profit they can choose to exceed this threshold to maximize future earnings. You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is.
-
Read the legend. The revenue indicated as number 4 in the list on the lower area of the site consists only of stadium-related revenue.
-
So the Sox pay Forbe's magazine and other media outlets to tell us that they make less than they actually do, so they have to pay less to keep up their earnings? That's basically what you're saying here. The numbers are public, and i'll take analysis of the numbers provided to me by reputable media outlets over subjective opinions every day.
-
I know it's a breakdown of team value. It's why i said that the year-to-year changes wouldn't be significant enough not to be used as actual data for the yearly income of the team. Because the problem is, that the revenue figure they use only accounts for tickets and brand management. If you apply the fact that the way team worth is divided is actually the total figure that each area of revenue has added to the total team value without excluding any major components, it's much more accurate than a year-to-year look. Also, the stadium value accounts for other activities besides regular ticket prices.
-
I doubt Beltre's in decline, he busted a nut last year.....that's about all i'm going to say about that. Buch+Ells+Kelly ain't happening. Kelly is untouchable.
-
2009 Boston Red Sox mainstream revenue: $269 million dollars. 2009 Boston Red Sox player expenses: $165 million dollars. Revenue-player expense %: 61.33% 2009 New York Yankees mainstream revenue: $375 million dollars. 2009 New York Yankees player expenses: $236 million dollars. Revenue-player expense%: 62.93 % There are other confounders,(they will pay around $100 million in stadium expenses and luxury tax) but the revenue mentioned by Forbes does not include the massive stream generated from either TV network, which is why it mentions the Yankees making "around 450 to 500 million in actual revenue", and this is where the true difference exists between the Red Sox and Yanks, however, the fact that "mainstream" or "non-NESN or YES" including revenue-to player expense percentage is almost identical, tells you that the Sox spend just like the Yankees, but within their realm of possibility.
-
This is your opinion, and you're absolutely entitled to it, however, it is incorrect and biased. I'm not going to start an argument with you on this, seeing as you conveniently chose to avoid every point i made in my previous post, which leads me to believe this will end up a name-calling fest like it always does with you.
-
-
1) Agree. 2) The potential reward is worth the risk. 3) Agree. 4) Whose to say he stopped? 5) Adrian Beltre has a lifetime .779 OPS, and was injured last year, i doubt that .683 OPS is a real indication of what his actual offensive performance would be going forward, not to mention he's the best defensive 3B in the game today, as for A-Gon, Kelly shouldn't even be brought up, since he has been deemed untouchable by the organization, and moving Ellsbury would be a big, big mistake down the line.
-
Ok.
-
The best i could find was the 2007 chart, but it illustrates my point perfectly, since year-to-year changes aren't drastic enough to change the outlook of the total income significantly: Forbes 2007 Boston Red Sox analysis. According to the source i'm citing, the Sox, as of 2007, had a team value of $724 million, said value was divided as follows: http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2007/330700_2.gif So as you can see, gate income only accounts for 23% of the team's total gains. Found the 2009 version: http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/330700_2.gif
-
What i think he meant is that Ells could get really expensive through the arb process.
-
Incorrect. At least 40% of the revenue the Red Sox generate on a yearly basis comes from their marketing ploys, only around 20-22% comes from selling tickets. I have read this before several times. I will present you with a source shortly.
-
Considering he can play all over the infield, and even the OF in a pinch, i'd say yes.
-
-
Who backs them up, champ? You?
-
That lineup had Bengie Molina hitting cleanup for the better part of 3 seasons. My initial assessment is correct.
-
-
Position-by-position defense is also about or better than league average. Run prevention is fantastic, what he hasn't been able to do is consistently identify good offensive players.
-
-
The Sanchez trade and that team's pitching say he's not as terrible as you say.
-
Over 50 million are coming off the books next year, so that's not a point of concern.
