12-14-2010, 10:54 AM
<!--quoteo(post=123293:date=Dec 14 2010, 09:47 AM:name=satchel)-->QUOTE (satchel @ Dec 14 2010, 09:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=123291:date=Dec 14 2010, 08:26 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 14 2010, 08:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Perhaps if we had a taxpayer funded stadium, like the Phillies or WhiteSox, we'd be able to bump our payroll up near the $150-$170 MM mark like Philadelphia.
Excerpt from Joe Sheehan's Newsletter
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->We do know Amaro Jr. has money to spend. The Philies may pay the luxury tax this year, and if they don't, it won't be for lack of trying. The cycle here is one that a dozen teams could take to heart, however. The Phillies emerged from a downturn by drafting out of their minds, getting Howard, Utley, Rollins and Hamels that way. They picked the free-talent market clean for Victorino and Werth. They locked up their young players with the revenues generated by their taxpayer-funded ballpark, and when the team got better and filled the place deep into the fall, they took a lot of the new money and put it back into the team. That's the implied promise all these teams make, implicitly, when they demand -- in some cases nearly steal -- hundreds of millions of dollars in public money. "Spend this on us," they say, "and we will pay it back in the experience." The Phillies, to their credit, have tried to make that payback in a way that few of the other teams sucking on the state teat have ever considered.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not like wrigley was built last year by the owners...
<b>There is no way the phillies should be outspending the cubs, you cant even compare the market and fan base size... </b>I mean, its quite pathetic that the garza deal would make most think this was a good offseason for the cubs... 33yr old peña and a solid #3 pitcher with potential, yay! Meanwhile the red sox beat everyone for the 2012 most wanted free agent and added another top 3 free agent this year...
btw, how does the FA list look for next year?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Philly is a very large city with only ONE team. They have a new ballpark with beautiful and numerous suites. The have a corporate sponsor paying a huge sum for naming rights. They have advertising throughout the stadium. They don't have such significant maintenance costs for their 5 year old ball park. They probably receive all kinds of cash from parking and other ammenities offered by the new park. They don't have below market broadcast deals with the prior owner. I'd guess the Phils revenue is quite a bit larger than the Cubs.
As big of an asset Wrigley is for the Cubs, it is aslo an impediment. That's why I'm on board with Rickett's plan to upgrade the ballpark. Once the ballpark is top notch the revenues will come.
Excerpt from Joe Sheehan's Newsletter
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->We do know Amaro Jr. has money to spend. The Philies may pay the luxury tax this year, and if they don't, it won't be for lack of trying. The cycle here is one that a dozen teams could take to heart, however. The Phillies emerged from a downturn by drafting out of their minds, getting Howard, Utley, Rollins and Hamels that way. They picked the free-talent market clean for Victorino and Werth. They locked up their young players with the revenues generated by their taxpayer-funded ballpark, and when the team got better and filled the place deep into the fall, they took a lot of the new money and put it back into the team. That's the implied promise all these teams make, implicitly, when they demand -- in some cases nearly steal -- hundreds of millions of dollars in public money. "Spend this on us," they say, "and we will pay it back in the experience." The Phillies, to their credit, have tried to make that payback in a way that few of the other teams sucking on the state teat have ever considered.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not like wrigley was built last year by the owners...
<b>There is no way the phillies should be outspending the cubs, you cant even compare the market and fan base size... </b>I mean, its quite pathetic that the garza deal would make most think this was a good offseason for the cubs... 33yr old peña and a solid #3 pitcher with potential, yay! Meanwhile the red sox beat everyone for the 2012 most wanted free agent and added another top 3 free agent this year...
btw, how does the FA list look for next year?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Philly is a very large city with only ONE team. They have a new ballpark with beautiful and numerous suites. The have a corporate sponsor paying a huge sum for naming rights. They have advertising throughout the stadium. They don't have such significant maintenance costs for their 5 year old ball park. They probably receive all kinds of cash from parking and other ammenities offered by the new park. They don't have below market broadcast deals with the prior owner. I'd guess the Phils revenue is quite a bit larger than the Cubs.
As big of an asset Wrigley is for the Cubs, it is aslo an impediment. That's why I'm on board with Rickett's plan to upgrade the ballpark. Once the ballpark is top notch the revenues will come.