CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

Premium and Super Premium Subscribers Get a 20% Discount at MLB.tv!

Articles Tagged Team Revenue 

Search BP Articles

All Blogs (including podcasts)

Active Columns

Authors

Article Types

Archives
<< Previous Tag Entries No More Tag Entries

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

March 14, 2011 9:00 am

Ahead in the Count: Battle for the Beltway

36

Matt Swartz

In the Nationals' and Orioles' battle for the local fan base, the team that blinks first may stand to gain the most.

This past month, I moved back up I-95 from Washington to Philadelphia, where I’d spent all but the previous eighteen months of my life. There has been only one major-league franchise in the City of Brotherly Love since the Athletics forsook Philly in 1955, but as I discovered during my sojourn in the District, many baseball fans in the DC area have been torn between the Baltimore Orioles, for whom many of them grew up cheering, and the Washington Nationals, who emigrated from Montreal in 2005. Neither team has been good during their years of geographic coexistence, and the metropolitan area has not seen a playoff game since 1997, but both teams have slowly begun to develop the young talent necessary to compete. Although animosity stemming from Orioles owner Peter Angelos’ opposition to a Washington franchise has cost the O’s some fans, many in the DC area have yet to determine their allegiance.

The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.

Not a subscriber?

Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.


Cancel anytime.


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

A brief history of revenue sharing, from Bill Veeck to Randy Levine.

A little over a week ago, Yankees president and designated apoplectic pit bull Randy Levine decided to divert attention from his team's pitching woes by going after a new target: Rangers owner Chuck Greenberg. Five days earlier, the Texas honcho had asserted that it was his team's efforts to sign Cliff Lee that had stalled the Yankees long enough for the Phillies to enter the picture with their ultimately winning bid. Levine, hearing these as fighting words, lashed out by calling Greenberg a welfare case:

Read the full article...

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

November 16, 2010 9:00 am

Prospectus Q&A: J.C. Bradbury, Part I

3

David Laurila

The baseball economist discusses market value, revenue sharing, and a player's value to various teams.

J.C. Bradbury is the author of The Baseball Economist and the newly-released Hot Stove Economics: Understanding Baseball’s Second Season. An associate professor at Kennesaw State University, Bradbury has a Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University.


The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

August 12, 2010 8:00 am

Squawking Baseball: Do New Owners Spend More?

3

Shawn Hoffman

The Rangers have finally been sold, so is it possible that the new owners will start spending much more than Tom Hicks?

In case you missed Maury Brown’s caffeine-fueled tweet binge last Wednesday, the Rangers’ ownership-transfer fiasco is finally (and mercifully) over. After months of endless negotiating and maneuvering, the group that was supposed to get the team all along—led by Pittsburgh lawyer Chuck Greenberg and former Advil pitchman Nolan Ryan—ended up winning a day-long auction, beating out a rival group headed by Mark Cuban. The team is now officially out of bankruptcy, off of MLB’s dole, and presumably ready to start running normally again.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

August 20, 2009 12:10 pm

The Biz Beat: A New Way to Rank the GMs

57

Shawn Hoffman

Building on the work of Doug Pappas and Nate Silver, a new kind of scorecard.

Back in 2004, the late Doug Pappas came up with a simple way to evaluate how well each team was spending their money: marginal payroll per marginal win. Here's Doug's original formula:

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

To read Tim Kniker's Unfiltered post following up on one of the audience's suggested topics, surf here.

Read the full article...

Dan reviews J.C. Bradbury's new book.

"[Economics] is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions."
--John Maynard Keynes, as quoted in the introduction to J.C. Bradbury's The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed


Read the full article...

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

April 30, 2007 12:00 am

The Ledger Domain: Q&A with Vince Gennaro

0

Maury Brown

Maury chats with Vince Gennaro, a former consultant to MLB clubs and author of Diamond Dollars.

When Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball, a larger audience became aware of Doug Pappas and his groundbreaking metric, Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins, published here at Baseball Prospectus. The metric placed an economic value on how much a club was spending to earn wins, and how much a club was spending in the overall in terms of marginal payroll. It placed the value of a win into perspective, and was seen as a way for clubs to better valuate how they spent, not how much they spent.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

November 3, 2006 12:00 am

On the Margins

0

Neil deMause

Now that some of the details of the new CBA are coming to light, Neil's able to look at a few of the finer points of how teams will now receive and spend money.

For anyone trying to analyze the new deal, though, the way it was announced was less revolutionary. All that MLB and the MLBPA signed last week was a "memorandum of understanding" sketching out the broad strokes of the deal--and what was released to the press was even less than that, effectively a summary of a summary. As a result, most of the reporting thus far has necessarily been a mix of incomplete facts, rumor, and guesswork. Maury Brown began to untangle the CBA's new revenue-sharing rules on Monday. My job today is to take a deeper look at some of the implications of the new system for how teams will actually be receiving--and spending--money.

First off, a quick recap of the rule changes, as we understand them so far. Under the old system, as Maury explained, revenue sharing consisted of two separate pieces: A "straight pool" that skimmed off 34% of every team's revenues and divided equally among all 30 teams, and a "split pool" that was levied only on the top-revenue teams and redistributed to the lowest-revenue ones. (This two-headed system was a compromise put into place during the last labor talks in 2002, when the owners wanted a straight-pool plan, and the players a split one.) The overall effect was that several hundred million dollars a year was shuffled around, mostly from the rich teams to the less-rich, but with the odd effect that teams at the top of the economic ladder actually got to keep a bit more of each dollar of new revenue (giving up 39%) than those at the bottom (who gave up 47%).

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

July 7, 2006 12:00 am

Schrodinger's Bat: Thinking and Rethinking: Part 2

0

Dan Fox

Dan concludes his recap of the SABR convention, and corrects some issues from last week's column.

In Part 1 of this two-part column we looked at three interesting research presentations given at the 36th annual SABR convention. In review, those included a study evaluating managers by Chris Jaffe, a look at the performance of players in the "walk year" of their contract by Phil Birnbaum, and Sean Forman's quantitative look at a catcher's ability to stop wild pitches and passed balls.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

February 16, 2006 12:00 am

Bronx Bummer

0

Neil deMause

Neil deMause responds to Andrew Zimbalist and the Yankee Stadium financing debate.

Now that Zimbalist has issued his rebuttal, though, I'm glad for the opportunity to get to the bottom of the question of just who'd be paying the $1.8 billion tab to replace Yankee and Shea Stadiums. As I've been stressing for months now, it's not as straightforward a question as it sounds, what with the current craze for financing agreements that are more complex than the save rule.

As Zimbalist correctly observed on BP Radio, I'm a journalist, not an economist--though I do consult with economists and other sports business experts on a regular basis, to check both my reasoning and my Excel skills. That said, he's an economist, not a journalist, and may not have all the information on the nuances of the New York stadium deals. So I've spent the last couple of weeks digging through the public record, and the not-so-public record, to clear up the facts of the matter. The result is going to take a bit to explain and will delve in places into economic minutiae, but try to keep your eyes from glazing over for just the next few minutes--this is worth getting right, not just for the sake of New York taxpayers, but because it's an excellent lesson in the difficulties of ferreting out the true costs of modern stadium deals.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

November 22, 2005 12:00 am

Lies, Damned Lies: Defending Jeffrey

0

Nate Silver

The Marlins are undertaking another fire sale, but as Nate argues, this one can be justified by the numbers.

In the face of all that, I'm here to make the case for the Great Florida Fire Sale.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

<< Previous Tag Entries No More Tag Entries