2K14: Billy Hamilton

[Hammer]

And Pete? What would you expect Jocketty to tell the fans when he's about to let one of their best players go for what amounts to a draft pick? He can't tell thm the truth, which is that if they kept Choo, their profit for the season would be a lot less, or else they'd have to cut the payroll in other ways, most likely leading to a worse team.

So I am expected to take your word for it that they had the money? Choo wasn't in their budget. I am not sure if youre hung up on semantics, meaning that the Reds could've looked under the couch to find the sheckels to pay Choo but with the recent big commitments to Votto, Phillips and Bruce plus knowing that Bailey, Cueto and Votto were coming up, the Reds decided something had to give and that was Choo.
It sounds like youre saying that because of new TV revenue, any team has the resources for any contract signing and I don't know how you can definitively say that without seeing the raw numbers of a teams budget.

[Hammer]

FWIW the Reds 2014 budget is $114,170,439. With Choo on board, that number would be a little north of $128 million.

[Hornsby]

So I am expected to take your word for it that they had the money? Choo wasn't in their budget. I am not sure if youre hung up on semantics, meaning that the Reds could've looked under the couch to find the sheckels to pay Choo but with the recent big commitments to Votto, Phillips and Bruce plus knowing that Bailey, Cueto and Votto were coming up, the Reds decided something had to give and that was Choo.
It sounds like youre saying that because of new TV revenue, any team has the resources for any contract signing and I don't know how you can definitively say that without seeing the raw numbers of a teams budget.

As I said in the previous post, they have the money, they CHOSE to use it in other ways. Every team in MLB essentially got a 25 million dollar a year raise with the new TV contract...make of that what you will. The Reds chose, wisely IMO, to use the money elsewhere, and to pocket a good chunk of it.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Every team in MLB essentially got a 25 million dollar a year raise with the new TV contract...make of that what you will.

I've heard this repeated a lot this offseason by fans unhappy their team isn't spending more, but it's not actually true. The payment schedule doesn't work out exactly that way, and the commissioner's office withholds a substantial portion of the money for the central fund anyway. The Rockies owner went into quite a bit of detail earlier this winter if you want a good explanation of how it works.

More national TV money for teams to spend this season? Yes. $25 million more per team? Not even close.

Edit to add link to Rockies article:

http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_24630592/rockies-owner-dick-monfort-provides-detailed-look-at-teams-budget-financial-structure

[Hornsby]

I've heard this repeated a lot this offseason by fans unhappy their team isn't spending more, but it's not actually true. The payment schedule doesn't work out exactly that way, and the commissioner's office withholds a substantial portion of the money for the central fund anyway. The Rockies owner went into quite a bit of detail earlier this winter if you want a good explanation of how it works.

More national TV money for teams to spend this season? Yes. $25 million more per team? Not even close.

Edit to add link to Rockies article:
http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci...cial-structure

According to that article, they expect MLB to hold back 8 million of the estimated 27 million, making the figure 19 million in increased revenue. Additionally, it's said that while MLB has threatened to withhold the 8 million, they actually hadn't done so at the point of publication, it was stated that MLB used it as a "threat" in the past.

To explain his thinking, Monfort, for the first time, provided The Denver Post with a line-by-line budget. He also explained why he isn't about to spend all that new TV money next year. He said he is planning to receive $8 million less, or $19 million, believing a chunk will be kept for baseball's central fund to compensate for last season. MLB said it was going to hold back money this past year for the central fund, but after owners complained, the money was not withheld, leaving Monfort to believe extra money will be withheld next year.

"I don't know if other clubs are looking at it like that, but we are," Monfort said. "We have been told (as owners), and I don't know if it is scare tactics or not, that (each team) will pay that back this year. The way we are budgeting right now is that not only are we not getting that extra $4 million (like last season) but we will be paying back the $4 million from last year."

So he's planning on receiving 19 million in additional revenue, which while not 25 million, isn't a huge falloff...and that payment to MLB may or may not happen, correct?

[RSF]

Ummm, that was one of the points that I was making from the very beginning when you took exception to my use of the term "investing in Hamilton"...everything in pro sports is about money. Always has been and always will be...perhaps the only exceptions that I can recall to that are the Steinbrenner Yankees, and a few years of the Angels under Artie Moreno.

And the choice between Choo and Hamilton was a business decision, again, as I've said all along. It was a business decision AND a baseball decision to go with Hamilton at a savings of well over 20 million a year, just as it's a business decision AND a baseball decision to go with Hamilton over Heisey and Bernadina. Hamilton gives them the best chance to win, which means more fans in the seats, which leads to better ratings, which leads to better revenues. Nobody is going to pay to see Roger Bernadina, people WILL pay to see a guy who can go from 1st to 3rd on a weak grounder to the pitcher. Again, baseball and business hand in hand.

And Pete? What would you expect Jocketty to tell the fans when he's about to let one of their best players go for what amounts to a draft pick? He can't tell thm the truth, which is that if they kept Choo, their profit for the season would be a lot less, or else they'd have to cut the payroll in other ways, most likely leading to a worse team.

You continue to miss my point, and I continue not to see any basis for the way you used investment initially. So be it.

As to baseball economics, it simply is more complicated than you suggest.

[eephus]

The Reds made a conscious decision to extend Bailey rather than take a run at Choo. Choo's $14M 2014 salary isn't the issue; a lot of teams could have made room for that in their budget. The problem comes 5-6 years from now when the Rangers are in for $42M on an age 36-37 player.

[chancellor]

As I said in the previous post, they have the money, they CHOSE to use it in other ways. Every team in MLB essentially got a 25 million dollar a year raise with the new TV contract...make of that what you will. The Reds chose, wisely IMO, to use the money elsewhere, and to pocket a good chunk of it.

While the $25 mil figure is debatable, Horns general concept here isn't - the Reds have the capability to go up to. $128 mil for 2014 and still make money. They made a business choice to spend 14 mil less and probably make more money.

But let's note the Brewers expanded payroll to nearly $108 mil this year and still plan to turn a profit. Cinci's income is, by my read, more than 20 mil greater than the Brewers.

[Kevin Seitzer]

While the $25 mil figure is debatable, Horns general concept here isn't - the Reds have the capability to go up to. $128 mil for 2014 and still make money. They made a business choice to spend 14 mil less and probably make more money.

But let's note the Brewers expanded payroll to nearly $108 mil this year and still plan to turn a profit. Cinci's income is, by my read, more than 20 mil greater than the Brewers.

I don't know what the Reds capability for payroll is. If the question is whether they have room to spend more and drive their profit to zero, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is yes, but that's not how people run businesses. Typically they have a certain profit margin that they expect to get.

I also know that the money that comes from the national TV contract isn't a simple $25 million (or $27 million) boost for teams this year. And it's also not quite how Monfort explained it. All the money goes to the central fund, and then they disburse certain payments to the teams. I'm not at liberty to discuss more details than that, but the net effect for most teams is something like what Monfort explained as the bottom line for the Rockies, that they would have $11 million more available to increase payroll for 2014.

Given the complexity of understanding the team finances even with the info available privately, I can't imagine how a fan would begin to parse through the various streams of revenue and expenses to figure out how much a team can spend. I understand why fans are reluctant to trust the teams, but in my experience most owners want to win as much or more than any dedicated fan.

[james33]

I'm not saying it work work for the Astros or the Reds...just wishful thinking here.

Would anyone's fanbase be mature enough to deal with pure financial transparency from a MLB ballclub?

MLB ballclub publishes an annual financial statement and an annual budget, and explains it. "In 2014, we're looking to spend a total of $150 million, $110 million of which is in player salaries. And we're hoping for a revenue of $180 million; that gives ownership a $30 million profit." Would such transparency help with the fans or would fans still mistrust or envy the profit plans? Does any team do this?

[Hornsby]

I also know that the money that comes from the national TV contract isn't a simple $25 million (or $27 million) boost for teams this year. And it's also not quite how Monfort explained it. All the money goes to the central fund, and then they disburse certain payments to the teams. I'm not at liberty to discuss more details than that, but the net effect for most teams is something like what Monfort explained as the bottom line for the Rockies, that they would have $11 million more available to increase payroll for 2014.

Monfort explains that 11 million dollar figure in the article. He took 5.5 million of the increased revenues to re-pay past loans from MLB, and an additional 3.5 million in anticipated losses for not having the Yankees and the Red Sox coming into Coors for inter-league play this season. So he essentially used the money as operating revenue, which is certainly his right to do.

[jamegumb]

This thread seems to have veered way off course from Billy Hamilton... lets do end of year projections based on the first three weeks:
.265, 2HR, 40RBI, 62 stolen bases

[eephus]

I'm not saying it work work for the Astros or the Reds...just wishful thinking here.

Would anyone's fanbase be mature enough to deal with pure financial transparency from a MLB ballclub?

MLB ballclub publishes an annual financial statement and an annual budget, and explains it. "In 2014, we're looking to spend a total of $150 million, $110 million of which is in player salaries. And we're hoping for a revenue of $180 million; that gives ownership a $30 million profit." Would such transparency help with the fans or would fans still mistrust or envy the profit plans? Does any team do this?

As privately held companies, they're not obligated to report on this. Among US teams in the big four sports, only the Packers do anything similar. A number of world soccer clubs are publicly traded but there's some dispute about where the division is between the LLC and the principal owners' pockets.

MLB owners would be overwhelmingly against increased financial transparency. The few glimpses we've had at how their internal machinations work (e.g. the McCourt divorce proceedings and the Wilpons lawsuit) have been eye openers.

[Sharky]

This thread seems to have veered way off course from Billy Hamilton... lets do end of year projections based on the first three weeks:
.265, 2HR, 40RBI, 62 stolen bases

At .265 he's much more compelling than at .205 of course. And he will get so many AB that a poor BA will really sting. Still, 60 SB is huge. Is he worth breaking the bank for?

[eephus]

I think Hamilton's 4% BB rate and .260 BABIP should both improve. He never walked much in the minors, which was the most discouraging part of his development, but with daily exposure to MLB pitching he should be able to improve on 4%. I realize he doesn't hit the ball hard but it seems like a guy with his speed should have a better BABIP.