- This topic has 668 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Numbers at the gate, do not determine the market-size
But they do help determine revenue and indicate that the Cardinals true market size is much larger than the St. Louis metro area, which most of us already knew.
In a simple search I found that the average cost of an MLB ticket is $65.00. In another search I found that a 3 person family would have to figure on spending $155.00 for a Cardinals game, which equals about $51.00 per person. Since the average cost of a ticket is supposedly $65.00, I’ll round the cost up to $55.00 per person.
If we pay Yadi $10M, then 181,000 more fans would have to attend a game because Yadi was playing rather than a relative unknown catcher. Would the Cardinals lose 181,000 fans because their fan favorite was gone, and their success rate in wins was down?
Also, if we traded for Arenado, then 636,000 additional fans would have to show up to cover the cost of his contract. Would the Cardinals draw 636,000 more fans with Arenado leading the team to 90++ wins than they would with the present lineup leading the team to 82-85 wins?
Obviously, these are very speculative numbers. But I think it still provides food for thought.
Indeed that is true, if only the Cardinals were not being compared to other teams, from much larger population centers, with much better network coverage. The Cards are compared to other teams and when compared to them, they are middle of the pack in market size, which most of us already knew.
Frankly, how any of us define “midmarket” seems pretty irrelevant. Who knows MLB team revenues and markets best? MLB itself, of course! Here is what they say and do as a result…
“The 10 lowest-revenue clubs and the clubs from the 10 smallest markets are eligible to receive a Competitive Balance draft pick each year.”
The Cardinals are and have been included in this group. We know they do not qualify by revenue, so it confirms that MLB considers the Cardinals are not a middle-tier, but in fact, a bottom-third market team.
I get the regionalism argument, but everyone in MLB knows this, too. It seems to me that if the majority of MLB teams (not just whining Theo) disagree with this method of qualification, they would have pushed to change it a long time ago. (This is the second CBA for Competitive Balance, now nine years in. Maybe they will adjust it next time…)
Market size and wealth can be defined many ways. According to Forbes the Cardinals are worth more than the Phillies, Angels, Nationals, Astros, White Sox, and Braves, all from larger cities and I would assume larger TV markets.
I am not complaining that the Cardinals get an extra draft pick, yeah for us! I just don’t want the team or fans to ever think we can’t do certain things because we are the little, small market, poor Cardinals. Wrong.
Did anyone actually suggest that the Cardinals cannot afford to spend more money than they do? Or any other MLB team regardless of market size or revenue, for that matter?
But it does not happen that way. The reality is that every team sets a self-imposed budget. The Cardinals have already stated they are going to have a down payroll in 2021. As of right now, their biggest potential spend seems to be Yadier Molina, the subject of this thread.
For me, the question remains, if they do not sign Molina, would they spend the money elsewhere to improve the offense? If I believed that to be hardwired true, I just might convince myself that letting Molina walk would be the best outcome for the 2021 team.
For example, adding Molina’s $10 MM (estimated) to whatever they may have budgeted for a DH might land them a relatively productive hitter. It would be even better if the Cardinals would do both, but it seems of no value to wish for something we have already been told will not happen.
For me, the question remains, if they do not sign Molina, will they spend the money elsewhere to improve the offense? If I believed that to be hardwired true, I just might convince myself that letting Molina walk would be the best outcome for the 2021 team.
Yes, I think they would but if it were me I wouldn’t spend it on catcher. I would go with Knizner and look at a different position for a bat upgrade. It doesn’t appear that the front office views it that way though, based on certain comments.
I don’t interpret it that way, gscottar. While Mo said they would bring in another veteran catcher if Molina does not come back, there was no mention of his quality and salary. A Wieters type costs just $2 MM, way, way less than Yadi.
(Tyler Heineman is not the best answer to replace Molina and Wieters, but he is all they have right now. So of course they would need to bolster the position depth further if Molina does not return.)
My assessment after being on all of these calls is that they would most likely add a DH that would not block the outfielders (as badly).
For me, the question remains, if they do not sign Molina, will they spend the money elsewhere to improve the offense? If I believed that to be hardwired true, I just might convince myself that letting Molina walk would be the best outcome for the 2021 team.
I would be in favor of that approach.
“……… they would most likely add a DH that would not block the outfielders (as badly).”
So the FO must believe the DH will happen in the NL before the seasons starts? How else do I interpret that? I was blindsided by that information.
Catcher Casali was non-tendered over a 2 to 2.4mil expected arb salary.
Blindsided? I am surprised.
My summary of Mo’s recent remarks.
Would not specify which positions he looks to upgrade offensively. Could lean more toward adding an offensive player since the defense is already strong. Cited Paul Goldschmidt as an example of a player who makes others around him better. Nice to anchor to.
On the designated hitter, knowing the rules would be helpful for roster construction. For St. Louis, the DH seems like a good place to start. Not sure when they will get the answer, so be patient.
Looking for fan admiration apparently, Molina took to Instagram the other day, asking everyone where he should sign. Tens of thousands have reacted, as if any of it is is meaningful…
No one is saying that the Cards are poor, should not spend and should not have a top 10 payroll. They are not, they do and they do. They are 8th in revenue, are in the 8th largest market, and have the 6th highest payroll. Many would say they are doing more than required; obviously not the most outspoken Cardinal fans. Those saying they do too little, enjoy the idea of spending the money of others, with no risk to their own pocketbook.
Large, medium and small markets are not evenly divided into groups of 10. There 5-7 Large market, 9-14 small and everyone else scattered between.
As far as comparing the Cards to the Dodgers:
The Yankees (Large)
$2,304,000,000 Market Size (1)
$683,000,000 Revenue (1)
$223,019,037 Payroll (2)The Dodgers (Large)
$1,661,000,000 Market Size (2)
$556,000,000 Revenue (2)
$207,000,814 Payroll (4)The Red Sox (Large)
$1,429,000,000 Market Size (3)
$519,000,000 Revenue (3)
$229,196,106 Payroll (1)The Cubs (Large)
$1,364,000,000 Market Size (4)
$471,000,000 Revenue (4)
$221,590,085 Payroll (3)The Giants (Large)
$1,256,000,000 Market Size (5)
$452,000,000 Revenue (5)
$178,582,126 Payroll (5)The Mets (Large)
$917,000,000 Market Size (6)
$362,000,000 Revenue (12)
$146,835,812 Payroll (13)The Angels (Large)
$877,000,000 Market Size (7)
$377,000,000 Revenue (10)
$161,270,385 Payroll (9)The Cards (Mid)
$872,000,000 Market Size (8)
$383,000,000 Revenue (8)
$174,317,164 Payroll (6)The Phillies (Mid)
$857,000,000 Market Size (9)
$392,000,000 Revenue (7)
$159,637,244 Payroll (10)The Astros (Mid)
$774,000,000 Market Size (10)
$420,000,000 Revenue (6)
$168.804.925 Payroll (8)The Nationals (Mid)
$738,000,000 Market Size (11)
$370,000,000 Revenue (11)
$172.307.808 (7)According to those numbers there seems to be a very small difference between the large market Angels and mid tier Cardinals, with the mid tier Cardinals actually having more revenue than the large market Angels, but whatever. This is a subjective exercise.
And no I am not interested in spending other people’s money. I have been more concerned with how the Cardinals spend money instead of how much, however, I don’t advocate attaching a label to the Cardinals that gives ownership a convenient escape hatch.
Speaking of spending other people’s money, couldn’t it be argued that the owners are spending the money of the consumer? Where does that ticket revenue come from? Without TV viewers spending on cable or satellite stations there wouldn’t be TV revenue either.
This just solidifies my belief that we will all see what we want to see.
When I looked at the list of large market cities with MLB teams, LA, NY, Chicago, SF and Boston, I noted that three of them were able to support two MLB teams and numerous other pro teams. One MLB team, the alpha, dwarfed the Cards in revenue and spending and the other team was right there with the Cards. IMHO, that speaks volumes to the impact the market size has on the teams within that market.
NY: Yankees/Mets (MLB), Knicks/Nets (NBA), Giants/Jets (NFL), and Rangers/Islanders/Devils (NHL)
LA: Dodgers/Angels (MLB), Lakers/Clippers (NBA), Rams/Chargers (NFL), Kings/Ducks (NHL)
Chicago: Cubs/White Sox (MLB), Bulls (NBA), Bears (NFL), Blackhawks (NHL)
San Fran/Oakland: Giants/A’s (MLB), Warriors (NBA), 49ers (NFL), Sharks (NHL)
Boston: Red Sox (MLB), Celtics (NBA), Patriots (NFL), Bruins (NHL)
St Louis: Cards (MLB), Blues (NHL)Having only 2 major sports teams kinda makes St. Louis look like a second class city. Add to that our #1 ranking in murders/capita (since only city statistics are used), and we don’t appear to the outside world a very attractive place to reside and work. When the opposite is true.
Too bad.As if DeWitt and Mo are going to be moved by fan sentiment as expressed via Molina’s Instagram feed…
'I don't think it means he's going anywhere. He's a free agent. He's hearing from other teams. He's trying to turn up the heat on the #Cardinals.' — @Ben_Fred with a good read on Molina's social media post asking fans to tell him where to play next. https://t.co/gPaTSzTQlq
— Derrick Goold (@dgoold) December 23, 2020
Cards value contracts by projections of runs produced and runs saved. They add on a factor if it’s a legacy player. Like they did with Albert. What’s the factor? 10% more? 15% more? 20% more?
After reading about TCN’s #4 prospect Ivan Herrera, a two-year molina contract would be highly detrimental to this team advancing with its prized prospects. Give me Herrera in 2022 and stop all of this bs about molina’s sainthood. yadi is all about yadi and very little else. He has already torpedoed two of our highly ranked C prospects…. let’s not have that happen to Herrera. Messing with his advancement would be critical since there is a drop off of prized catchers after him.
Herrera is our best option in 2022. yadi ain’t going to sign for 1 year so wish him well in his future endeavors. Period.
Herrera is our best option in 2022. yadi ain’t going to sign for 1 year so wish him well in his future endeavors. Period.
A rookie backstop on a championship level team is our best option? I think not.
The best option is and remains a two year deal for Yadi with a 3/1 split for Yadi and Knizner next year (Knizner is traded after 2021) and a 1/1 split with Herrera in 2022.
What makes you believe that Molina will be open to a job share? I have seen no indication he is amenable to that.
My opinion is that Molina will leave for a promise to play every day for another team before agreeing to a diminishing workload over the next two years with St. Louis. I believe this contract is much more about Molina’s career legacy than finishing as a Cardinal.
The issue of “respect” is not just about money. In fact, playing time could become a major problem, too, if he is told he has to play less. None of this is a slam on him, but I firmly believe enhancing his Hall of Fame case is what is most important to him – and he cannot accomplish that from the bench. More important than money and more important than being a career-long Cardinal. Do I know this? Of course not. Do I believe it? Yes, I do.
On what is best for the team, I have suggested the additional $10 MM (estimated) could buy a much bigger DH bat to help the offense. Compare that potential WAR gain to the difference between Yadi and Knizner. Intangibles and legacies can only go so far…
Who says the Cards have to tell him anything before they sign the deal? It’s my belief that there are 0 MLB teams out there willing to offer Yadi a starting job without a time share for the next two years. In fact, I believe the Cards would offer him the most guaranteed starting time of any situation if they just flat out said, “Yadi, we are going to offer you 120 games (or 3/4 starts) this year and 80 next year on a 2 year deal.” Still, they don’t have to behold themselves to any sort of playing time offer in a deal. You think the Padres or Nats would keep starting him in a pennant chase if he’s not the best catcher at the time? The Cards play nice where others don’t.
Still, I do think it’s best for Yadi and best for the Cards that he comes back, while the Cards also look to the future where he’s no longer with the team. To lose him before 2021 will expose the team’s lack of a ready catcher, and to guarantee him two years of starting time without results could hurt 2022. That’s where the line comes in, stated or not.
I just don’t think Molina would ever agree to a 200-game limiter over the next two years. No way. And it would be far worse for the team to have such an intention but misrepresent it during negotiations. An unhappy Yadi would not be a good thing to have on any roster. He and Bengie would light up social media and create unnecessary drama.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.