12-15-2009, 05:31 PM
<!--quoteo(post=71734:date=Dec 15 2009, 06:53 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 15 2009, 06:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You act like the Cubs player payroll is it's only expense. They also have to pay for the Manager, the GM, Len and Bob, and all of the other front office and back office people from accountants to janitors. The costs for maintenance and improvements to Wrigley are also substantial. They also have minor league expenses, scouting expenses, and player development expenses, so on and so on.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with you, it doesn't look like a 140mil is on the field. There is no doubt that is a great payroll for the division. And I promise you I know team payroll is only part of what they spend.
But what I said was that in compared to revenues the Cubs aren't spending more on player payouts than they should be, at least not compared to other teams that make as much as they do, in my very, very novice opinion. (I'm assuming the costs of running the cubs is comparable to the cost of running the red sox, yankees, mets, dodgers, etc.) So like in 2008, the Cubs end of player expenses were 130mil, revenues were 214. The Red Sox player expenses were 199, revenues were 263. That means to me that the difference in revenues v. player expenses was 84mil for the Cubs, 64 for the Red Sox. Now I know a ton more goes into this, this says nothing of taxes, differed payments, etc... But I just wonder what the bottom line needs to be for the new ownership.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with you, it doesn't look like a 140mil is on the field. There is no doubt that is a great payroll for the division. And I promise you I know team payroll is only part of what they spend.
But what I said was that in compared to revenues the Cubs aren't spending more on player payouts than they should be, at least not compared to other teams that make as much as they do, in my very, very novice opinion. (I'm assuming the costs of running the cubs is comparable to the cost of running the red sox, yankees, mets, dodgers, etc.) So like in 2008, the Cubs end of player expenses were 130mil, revenues were 214. The Red Sox player expenses were 199, revenues were 263. That means to me that the difference in revenues v. player expenses was 84mil for the Cubs, 64 for the Red Sox. Now I know a ton more goes into this, this says nothing of taxes, differed payments, etc... But I just wonder what the bottom line needs to be for the new ownership.