Implications and insights regarding Cubs payroll & revenue/gross profitability
At first I was just going to respond to yesterdays FanPost but realized that this is bigger discussion that pulls in my payroll FanPost as well.
Background: There are some simple principles in business;
- Can you explain your business model and plan on the back of the envelope---meaning it has to be simple and apparent as to how it makes money and the risks are reasonable.
- What are the benchmarks, how can you tell a business is fiscally healthy outside a simple P/L statement.
Baseball possesses a fairly simple business model honed over a century; expenses are players, player development, venue cost, management and marketing, insurance and operations. The levels of marketing have become complicated but essentially the cost areas have remained the same. Each business model then has its own internal ratio's providing guiding thumbnails as how to judge how well a certain management team is taking care of business. It appears that MLB has a simple one as well, % of on field payroll against gross gate revenues (all tic sales plus FCI). I am calling it G-R/P.
Relative speaking to the Cubs:
As fan[atics] we judge teams by their wins & losses, playoff wins and ultimately WS wins. Through this decade I think I can say that Boston is the best organization both financially and fan-wise. The Yankees are a good #2 the Cardinals appear to be a solid #3 and recently the Phillies appear to approaching the top 5 along with the Cubs, Mets and even FL. Let us face it in relative terms Cubs have been in 3 playoffs since 2003, 3/6 years, while the Cards during the same period have been in the playoffs 4/6 years.
In my earlier spread and the earlier one regarding the Cubs payroll projected over the next 5 years it basically tells you how or what Hendry & Co. has done spending and making money. Naturally as fan[atics] we want it all and really don't care what it costs---at least some, but as the <em>Rolling Stones</em> wrote: <em>"You can't always get what you want, but if you try some time, YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED</em>!" Bottomline is those 3.3M paying customers are paying for this and will continue to do so.
It appears that a good thumbnail to judge the fiscal health of a team is a ratio that direct on field payroll costs that is less than 60% from direct revenues, G-R/P. Interestingly the NL splits their gate receipts 90/10 while the AL does 85/15, and that split is probably based on a thumbnail of what the traveling costs are for each club, translating to about $6M per NL club and $9M per AL club.
So the Cubs in 2008 appear to be at 57% (in the same class as with clubs like: NYM, StL, LAD, Phila, SF, HOU, OAK and BOS who is at 60%). Do you notice something here? Most are big market NL clubs who also have been successful generally on the field during this decade . BOS and Oakland are the lone AL teams where it seems that NYY seems to have pushed the G-P/R beyond healthy levels, NYY are at 74% where they have the most revenues $282M. I can say BOS has stayed healthy by having the highest FCI ($48.40) and Oakland by keeping payroll discipline. All other AL teams appear to be wilting trying to keep up with the NYY's, LAA, SEA are actually showing negative direct revenue gross profit and DET, TEX, CHISox, & BALT are showing G-P/R margins worse than many small market teams. Hmmm this doesn't bode well if we are falling into a deep recession or depression for the junior circuit.
Comparably speaking Hendry has done a masterful job. How does this all translate to what the Cubs can do in 2009 and then commit to more payroll in 2010-2014? I don't have the gumption to figure out what the new ticket price increases will translate but it appears the Cubs are be quite surgical on increasing revenues. Last year they sold 99.1% of their potential gate (BOS sold 104%, NYY 91% and NYM 89% and StL 90%, Phila 97% and DET 98%) Remember the Cubs were 2nd in FCI at $42.49 to BOS's $48.80 and above the NYY's $41.40 and NYM's $34.04. StL, Phila and LAD all remain under $30.00 FCI
<strong>Thus I see the Cubs seeking to increase direct revenues about 15% to about $240M thus 60% of that brings the payroll to $141.5M </strong>
So through all that there is the budget folks it might move to $145M but that would take a sign-off or unepected increase in direct revenues of $10M so by all accounts, both published and reverse engineered, $141-$142M appears the payroll budget based on the expected G-P/R.
Now this would put the Cubs are the highest payroll team in the NL and in the top 2 to 4 of MLB depending on what LAD, BOS do? For people like AL, you are paying for this, for people like me watching cable or MLB TV, merely commenting.
It would be interesting to see what the G-R/P was in 2006, 2007 & 2008 to see a trend but my guess is that Hendry has kept the ratio below 60% and was able to incrementally increase payroll accordingly.
Now the new owners will have a few new twists. It appears Zell is seeking to sell Wrigley Field to the State (Soldier Field & Comiskey) to save tax money where then they will have to sign a lease and possibly increase the costs of the Cubs home field. But the Cubs will probably be able to sell a portion of their weekend local broadcasts competitively like the NYY's, BOSox's, NYM's and LAD's.
So here is how it finally drills down
Cubs appear to be at $125-$127M right now for 2009
Cubs appear to be at $135-137M right now for 2010
My guess is that 2009 Hendry wants to keep at least $5M in reserves on his $141M so he has about $136M to spend now. If Bradley at $10M a year is the target he can do it with no other addition without subtraction and thus why I think he unloads as much of his marginal arb eligible players: Cedeno & Wuertz and possibly is looking to flip Vizcaino or Gregg attempting to pick up an additional $5-6M bringing his 2009 liability to $120-122M before more acquisitions. This might have to wait till March or he might be working the back channels all winter.
So here is the question for you fan[atics], what can you do with an additional $13-15M? in light that unless you are able to raise ticket prices in 2010 an additional 10% and still sell out at 99% in a eroding economy to cover a payroll I expect to be at $149M?
Something tells me Hendry is not sold on Bradley and he is looking for a marginally cheaper solution for 2009 and far less liability for 2010 and beyond. This could mean acquiring a veteran who is a FA next year or a younger arb eligble player OR BOTH who fulfill the left-handed bat and lead off hitter role(s).
Some have maintained that Lou is looking for both a RF'er, clean up hitting powerhouse---problem is there are now pigs who have wings right now.
or at least no Babe Ruth's.
via b2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com
I am just not seeing it as the math is telling me something else other than Milton Bradley---sure he might be plan B or C but not plan A as in example the the math eventually told Hendry that he couldn't have Peavy.
For DGU and Toons I think Hendry is revisiting Hermida for the math regarding FL tells me that even at their anti-fan G-P/R they are steadfast at surviving and being competitive at fielding a AAA All Star team with a payroll below $20-$25M. They love league minimum salaries against $2.5-$3M what Hermida expect to gain at a hearing.
The other question of course is allowing or forcing Piniella to move Soriano out of the lead off spot. Baltimore is a sick, sick organization that once was a very health team like the Cards. Last year they drew less than 2M fans, only 5 other clubs did the same, FL, TB, TEX, & KC. Their G-P/R cushion was just $16M, moving $8.5M in salary increases that by 50%!
Moves like this would probably spend $10.25M minus a possible savings of at least $1-2M in Cubs own arb eligible expenditures in trades implicating that $9.25M brings the Cubs to $135-$136M which again fits the budget math.
Is this a winning WS roster?NO...but it is a winning roster for the division and allows Hendry to make an opportunity or two moves during the season like he did the last couple of years and find that big thumper. All that is needed is the Cubs sell out their expensive seats and people continually buy expensive beers.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just skimming it
but are you saying that, in terms of baseball, that you think the Cubs may be pursuing Roberts and Hermida?
If not, then I’ll reread in a bit.
On Roberts – I’ve long said that they would shop him this offseason. I don’t know if they’ll end up dealing him, but shopping him was as plain as day since back in December, when the reportedly made an extension offer and Roberts didn’t respond. The failure to land Tex probably insures that Roberts will be dealt,, but that isn’t a rock solid lock.
As for us pursuing Roberts – I could see it, but I think the market will be greater than last year, meaning that the price may get too tough for us to match, considering our system. If a Roberts deal involves Vitters, do you make it? Now … if the market doesn’t expand, and it’s the White Sox vs. us (perhaps another team), then sure, we could probably land him without Vitters, so by all means, go for it and push hard. Roberts is the one guy that reshapes this lineup, moreso than any middle of the lineup guy can.
On Hermida – I’m still a fan of pursuing him, but it feels like we lack the chips to make said move. They are demanding the moon, and financially, they can afford their current payroll. I think they would demand a ridiculous return for Hermida to actually move him, so I don’t expect it at the moment.
_____________________________________
Honest expectation? Sometimes, the most likely answer is the simplest one. I think we’ll end up landing Bradley, and Hendry will wait to see what the new ownership says about increased payroll. If new ownership says no, then I expect Samardzija or Gaudin to get the 5th spot entering the year (I think we keep Marshall as a 2nd pen lefty), although I’m against Samardzija getting the rotation spot in 2009, to be frank. If yes, then I expect we’ll revisit a 5 or 6 for 1 deal for Peavy. Adding Bradley takes most of our flexibility away, as we need to maintain some mid-season maneuverability.
obviously could be....
I have a number agenda’s regarding this long winded analysis, one——I really wanted to try to figure out what box Hendry is in and two, I now seriously think that economics will rule more roster moves going forward for the next five years than it has in the last 20 or so years. Economics meaning deflationary trends for some markets so Roberts might be more valuable this year as far as cheap talent costs but not established costs.
To me the financials tell me who is weak and who is strong. The Cards, Houston are strong, along with Phila, LAD, NYM and SF, those teams will compete for the foreseeable future. Atlanta is weak, AZ, CO, Milw, SD are marginal while Cinci, Pitt, FL (by choice) are poor. That is where the deals are and why CO sold Holliday and why Cinci and Pitt are always selling.
Baltimore also is sick financially. I think McPhail is there to try to increase value to sell it but the egomaniac owner might be so upside down where he simply ruined a premier franchise with his stupidity. So what will it cost for Roberts? More than Cedeno, Fontenot and Pie….and possibly a real prospect arm you wrote about like Atkins—-four players for one well in some ways interchangeable parts.
Hermida is another money deal in reverse, what would also be expensive on the prospect/mimimum plane but both are available as both these teams seek to work the
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
I'll look over your posts a bit later
but on Baltimore – having been in the area for so long, I don’t buy that they are sick. I skimmed over your other post, and I don’t think your incorporated their MASN revenues into things. Overall, there has been little indication that the Orioles are a financially sick organization.
And I don’t think Fontenot/Cedeno/Pie/Atkins gets Roberts, in all honesty. I’d take Floyd over that foursome if I was Baltimore … and I think Baltimore should get more than Floyd in return for Roberts.
The broadcast revenues are not incorporated
I found a sports business link to 2001 deals on NL and cable broadcast and it shows the Cubs sold 70 games at $15M per year on a long term deal.
Baltimore’s market is 19th (one step lower than StL) they sold their cable rights for $4M to FSN for 59 games. So in relative terms even if rights doubled the most Baltimore can expect is $8M. Radio rights StL’s radio rights were sold for $6M okay let us increase that to $8M as well. $16M is the most I can squeeze out of the broadcast area.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
CHECK this out 'Toons'
Roberts to the “other” Chicago?
By Roch Kubatko on January 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (73)
Brian Roberts always seems to be linked to the Chicago Cubs in trade rumors, but White Sox general manager Kenny Williams loves the guy and is trying to acquire him.
The two sides have discussed former Mount St. Joe pitcher Gavin Floyd as a starting point in trade talks. The Orioles might need more, though the White Sox would want it to be straight-up, since they’d be surrendering a 17-game winner.
At least Orioles president Andy MacPhail could say he brought a local kid home. It’s just not Mark Teixeira.
Anyway, that’s the buzz.
So the Orioles are like the old quote:
Orioles owner was dead set against trading his favorite but the real issue was always the cost? Everything has a price when it comes to baseball players.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
I tend to agree...
I’d much prefer Hermida (in terms of financial cost and health), but I don’t see it happening. Everything to this point suggests we’ll be signing Bradley and hoping that maybe the new owners will approve a Peavy trade at a later time.
The new owners philosphy is all that matters in the end.
As you know, it is very difficult to find a true accounting of revenue figures for a MLB team. If the new owners believe that quality on the field and championships will bring them their idea of satisfaction in ownership, then we fans will be happy. If that satisfaction is strictly, or mostly financial in nature, probably not so much.
The Yankees put the $s on the field and hope for championships first and profitability second. The Marlins are the opposite and everyone else is in between. I hope we end up closer to the Yankee end of the spectrum.
One thing- each team will share equally in the MLB network’s revenue which may be $10 million per team the first year, by some reports.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
not so secret
actually you can figure out a lot on revenues, what you can’t figure out is all the hidden costs. I think a thumbnail tells you much however, if a teams field payroll is less that 60% of its gross revenues from the gate than you can assume within a range what its budget is.
Take for instance StL it’s payroll is $100M and its revenues are $198M or 51% of the gross. They don’t have a big broadcast contract so in scale maybe the Cubs broadcast revenues are roughly 5% more than the Cards….
What it tells you is how aggressive or imaginative they can be. OTOH it tells you that probably the broadcast revenues make up possibly 15-20% of the NYY’s budget and allow them to be very aggressive, even risky.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
BTW looking at the Clip N Save from Sport Business
The discussed the Cubs broadcast revenue stream in their notes:
CHI: Tribune owns team and WGN-AM and WGN-TV. WGN-TV buys airtime on WCIU-TV. Revenue reflects simultaneous national carriage of superstation WGN. Estimated ’01 TV revenue is $34M, while radio is $10M
Even if it is 2001 data it shows the scale and model. WGN actually bought air time on WCIU so it can broadcast more profitable prime time programming and made money from a package of 85 or so games on WGN sales. Radio is $10M and probably now worth $12-15M (radio has not increased much in value and might be flat). Now WGN is a different animal since it is superstation. TBS makes similar numbers
TBS-TV and Turner South are owned by TBS. Revenue reflects simultaneous national carriage of games on TBS. Estimated ’01 revenue for TV is $32.5M, estimated ’01 revenue for Turner South is $12.5M;
while in the biggest market the Mets get $13M from this deal,
NYM: FSN NY pays $8-10M for broadcast TV rights and sublicenses 50 games to WPIX-TV
So there you have the scale on revenues. Generally speaking major market teams get $10-20M depending on the deals…..not a cash rich area when you are talking about $200M annual streams.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
as for the Cubs I recalled an article that said that
They sold TV and radio for roughly $10M for TV and $5M for radio and the parent company pocketed the difference.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
I'm not disputing the ability to come up with a reasonable estimate.
Nor am I in any way denigrating the work you have done here. My main point is that ownership decides the philosophy. As far as TV rights, etc.
Here are a series of articles that discuss baseball revenue streams. Of note: Forbes estimates $13.5 million average per team for local deals, but the article points out that when teams own stakes in region sports networks it is much higher- $67 million for the Yankees, $47 million for the Mets and $21 million for the Red Sox.Whether the team’s payroll is at, above or below the current 52% average, and by how much depends solely on how the owners feel about winning, profitability and the relationship between them. Nice work you did here. Hope the new owners love winning enough to risk higher payroll numbers.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
thanks for the article this places more insight
I will add this to my personal spread.
Philosophy only goes so far. Now I am not going to discuss aberrations like FL who is at 37% or LAA who is at 105%
Eventually all organizations must have sustainability which these ratios and business principals demonstrate. To me the new owners appear to be either Private Equity or the on line trading entrepreneurs from Omaha and knowing these kind of persons personally and how they run organizations they will not deviate much if anything from this. I think that article from Bloomberg that said the Cubs had essentially max’d their revenue streams which deflated their price from $1B to $800-$900M was more telling.
It appears that Steinbrenner did but it appears he really hasn’t, either has Epstein. If NYY has $67M revenue stream from broadcast properties than his total revenues are about $350M and their payroll 59. Now if put in those number into BOS they too fall under the 60 category. The Mets are really racking in the cash BTW, and could start doing what the NYY’s are doing to the NL.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
You are probably right.
Financial guys are balance sheet oriented. It may be true that the Cubs revenue wouldn’t increase drastically with a WS win- or decrease drastically with non- playoff teams. That being the case, why not be conservative and build equity and profits? The only hope is that the Cubs are looked at more as a trophy, than strictly a business concern. This is why I would have been more comfortable with a Cuban type. Time will tell.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
Meant to click reply to the last post.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
essentially incorrect assumption on degrading revenues
Through hard work, excellent marketing, MLB’s high interest, results of two generations of WGN broadcasting including superstation penetration, and then competitive on field interest the Cubs have moved from 2.0M in the ’90’s to 2.5-2.6M gate team in the mid ’00’s to a 3M attendance team maxing out now at 3.3M. They have also increased gate receipts (tic’s and secondary income) with small incremental increases in total seating to this 99%. Things do come down. IIRC Cleveland attracted 3M as did Baltimore and Denver in year’s past.
The next two years the Cubs have an on field nucleus to continue that with a corresponding payroll budget. But after that the Cubs could shrink its revenue base and payroll accordingly like any business. If I were the business people I would offer a two contract on premium tickets to my most regular season ticket customers right now…’09 prices for ’10 and see how much I can secure in the bank.
What I failed to express through all of this was the fact that budgets just don’t appear arbitrarily—-even a new motivated owner cannot simply wave his hand and say I want to have a $150M budget like a king—-maybe some sports writers might conjure up this illusion for good copy but that is totally a delusion.
What I tried in a general back of the envelope analysis was to figure out the general components of a MLB budget as it relates to their number one discretionary budget item (on field payroll) and then relate it to our parlor game of acquiring roster pieces.
Now for me I at least understand the budget’s elasticity and its limits and why. Baseball is a business and thus function like one. Here is what I am thankful for:
Cubs have built a successful business operation out of a business investment that the Tribune simply suckled off of for almost 20 years. As the Tribune’s core business units started to degrade because of the 21st Century marketplace they looked at this weak sister and moved it from a financial mining operation to a true business where the Cubs got competitive. Generating $250M in direct revenues and possibly another $100M in indirect (other division revenues) for the Tribune CO became important.
I bet there was some heavy duty internal fighting over that money as the Cubs increased payroll through ‘01—’08 as the old business core began to hemorrhage cash. The good thing is that Zell is now selling it off as an individual entity not part of a corporate structure.
Now here is what I am happy for:
1) Piniella, high priced, high success field manager who demands resources
2) Cubs becoming one of the highest payroll teams in the NL, as they should in the 3rd largest market and best media structure. NYM have much bigger potential and LAD longest sustainable potential. I see Wrigley being added and renovated like Yankee Stadium after 2010 or 2011 to seek new gate revenues
3) Cubs are drawing over 3M paying customers and thus feeding machine. This places pressure on the machine to continue at a high level—-no excuses like the NYY’s and BOS’s fanbase.
If I were management I would begin investing in areas of actually developing talent:
1) Rudy Jaramillo seems to me to be the best hitting instructor and when his contract is up I would find a way to bring him to the Cubs organization.
2) Whoever is the best pitching instructor I would do the same as well as finding the best fielding instructor.
3) I would raid the Oakland organization for the best scout
I would rather spend development money here and let them do their work and reward them for success.
Then as an organization I would pursue talent on the field, talent puts you in position to winning. Never again scrimp on the best manager they make a difference far more than 5 games a year, they make all the difference if they have talent. There is a difference between LaRussa, Cox, Torre, Francona, Piniella, ans Scioscia and the rest in this generation.
Not coincidentally all time LaRussa is 3rd all time behind Connie Mack and McGraw (who he might catch). Bobby Cox is 4th and only 120 behind Tony, Torre is currently 7th but will pass Sparky Anderson this year and become 5th. Piniella is 14th, and if he stays through 2012 and maintains this pace will overtake Walter Alston for 8th all time. Stick around one more year and he can pass the famed Joe McCarthy. Statistics show that top managers find a way to win above .525 which by definition is 85-86 wins. Give them talent and that increases to 89-90 wins. Give them superior talent and that increases to 95-100 wins.
Cubs are on the brink of being a perennial power because of economics, organizational business capability, market/branding, market demand, and comparable market dynamics for it is my contention that there will be contraction that will also change small market teams to go into survival tactics for a few years. Investing in developing talent will pay dividends thrice fold, acquiring talent will be available because of money, having management to use it will be the difference.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
I think using numbers from 2001 is totally meaningless for projections.
MLB’s revenues have grown from 2 billion to over 7 billion in that time. The MLB.com is huge as is the Extra Innings package and merchandise and these didn’t have much impact in 2001. Also, the revenue benefit comes the following year after a title run as does the drop off after a really bad year.
I know you spent a great deal of time doing the study, but there are huge flaws in the assumptions.

by 























