Baseball Getting the Business End

A Visit to the Mound

Baseball fans over-analyzing an over-analyzed game

If you kids don't get your sh*t together I'm replacing all of you

A Visit to the Mound is regularly updated series of emails touching on a wide range of baseball subjects. 

Uncle Bones

Since we seem to be trending towards the business side of things here a bit check out this link to Forbes valuations of all the MLB franchises:

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

Granted, this is only a snapshot of an organization's financial health, but I'm still curious if any of these numbers jump off the page at you. (Beyond the $ values which are largely hypothetical)

Pay particular attention to the teams who are operating in the red this season. A few of them are floating right around breaking even, but a some others like the Phillies, Tigers & Blue Jays are operating at major losses.

Does MLB owe it to its consumers to ensure that these franchises have a long term plan to get in the black? Or is it really OK for an owner or ownership group to throw money around like they're Rick Ross at a strip club until they're like MC Hammer at the soup kitchen?

Josh

I feel like you were lofting a Detroit poverty joke over the plate for me, but I am going to Joey Votto that one and let it go by, hoping to earn the walk.  

I always find the idea of "owing" consumers interesting. What DOES a team owe it's fans in general?  Going back to the tanking debate, some might say that the team owes it's fans the best product they can put on the field night in and night out. OR does the team owe them long term sustainability, which is what tanking is working toward?  I tend to agree with the latter.  Earlier in the year Buster Olney pointed out that Joe Girardi hit Jeter second in the lineup due to "organizational pressures."  In that case, did the team owe it's fans the best line up possible, or did it owe them the ability to watch a legend go out on his own terms?  The line is murky at best, totally open ended at worst.   

That wasn't a filibuster, but more of an establishment of how debatable the idea of "owing" your fans something is.  I do believe in owing them long term sustainability.  I live in Buffalo, and until Terry Pegula fracked his way into our hearts, we lived with a constant dread of the Buffalo Bills moving. Once the Bills started playing games in Toronto, the dread went from minor anxiety to full blown freakout.  Much like the "presence" in the current horror hit It Follows, the fear was ongoing, ever present and impossible to shake. When the Pegula deal was announced, grown men called into the local radio station crying tears of joy. So does a team owe it's fans peace of mind?  Ideally yes, but this idea is better in theory than in practice.  Just ask San Diego Chargers and St Louis Rams fans how they feel right now.  

In regards to the financial numbers, if anything I took away that baseball is in the age of parity.  Look at the Royals and Athletics, two contenders last year operating with low payroll and showing financial health.  The Mets, Phillies and Yankees appear in the top 10 franchises, further proof that money buys you a chance but guarantees you nothing in baseball. Parity rewards fans. The NFL probably likes the Pats and Seahawks playing in the super bowl, but poll casual fans outside of those two fan bases and I'd wager you hear about how they're tired of seeing those teams in the finals. Who WASN'T excited watching the Royals last year, you know? 

Uncle Bones

Being a Bills fan the last 10 years was sort of like having a loved one being diagnosed with a terminal illness. We felt like it was just a matter of time before they were gone, but we really didn't know when or how exactly we would deal with it. Then suddenly a pop-up billionaire swooped in with the miracle cure and here we are. Personally, I had already started the "moving on" process only to be sucked right back in. I'm still not sure how I feel about it given my other apprehensions surrounding the NFL, but I'm fairly sure I'll be tuned in come September.

I like to pretend that I can disassociate the emotion of being a fan with the business realities of professional sports, but it's not quite that simple. I think what surprised me the most about that list was the total valuation of all the MLB teams combined that fell somewhere around $36 billion give or take. Theoretically, should MLB be posted for public trading it would fetch around that number for an IPO, but I suspect it might creep up a little higher than that.

That's seems like a lot of money and it is, but it still less that half of what Facebook was offered for. That's crazy to me. MLB has an over 100 year history and has been an American establishment as long as any who is alive can remember. Facebook has been on the planet for the third of the time that you and I have been and I can't even hold it in my hand. I've never attended a Facebook, its not on TV, it only exists on the Internet and something tells me that in 40 years we won't be talking about the comment that Parker liked that Madison made about the picture Lily posted of her cat's birthday cake in the same way we still talk about 1975 World Series.

So yeah, baseball is a business and it's a big one, but there are bigger ones out there. I was also surprised to see that some teams didn't make money last year. I know that there are debt issues attached to that math, but what it reminds me is that you don't buy a sports team to necessary make money. Its kinda like the ultimate rich guy status symbol. You know you're rich when you own a team and so does everyone else.

That also says to me that if you cared enough to buy a sports team then you are probably a fan yourself. And as a fan you would want the team that you own to win as much as possible. I wouldn't want to own a loser. Some people might be fine with it, but it would piss me right off.

Keep that in mind when I own (sponsor) a slew of Little League teams. You'll just hear in the news that "Local man ejected from LL game again", but truth will be that I was just doing everything in my power to urge those little tykes to victory. Oh and also to grow my brand.

The Curious Case of James Shields

James Shields in 2010 being informed his next World Series appearance would be with the Royals.

Let me start out by saying that I have almost no idea where James Shields will be playing baseball in 2015 or at what sort of price tag. What I do know is that no one else seems to really know either. But I love me some spec-u-latin', so here we go.

Here is what we do know. James Shields is a 32 year old pitcher with a career 111 ERA+ to his name. In his 9 years of Major League service Shields has gone over 200 innings every year in the last 8. He has been remarkably durable and consistent, minus a tough stretch with the Rays during the 09-10 seasons where for the only time in his career his FIP was over 4.00. The last 3 years however, Shields has posted a FIP around 3.50 while pitching for 2 different teams. He has clearly figured something out.

Also, there are those intangibles that we all simply have to take other people's word for. Like the much maligned "Big Game" James nicknamed battered about this postseason. But by most accounts Shields is a strong leader in the clubhouse and of a pitching staff. He is known as a "bulldog" out there on the mound which could mean anything from his general demeanor to that he has a hard time breathing due to a stubby nostril cavity and farts a lot because of it (his nose really isn't all that stubby, at least from pictures I have seen). Anyway, those intangibles are kinda worthless to me in trying to figure out exactly what team will pay how much to put its uniform on him.

What I do know is that there is plenty of reluctance out there to hand an about to be 33 year old pitcher a 5 year contract over a $100 mil which is the number I seem to be reading a lot recently. Most pitchers receiving contracts of that size are under the age of 30 which Shields is rapidly putting in his rear view mirror. Even if some of those under 30 pitchers do not have the same kind of track record that Shields has to his name (Homer Bailey, I'm talking about you).

One interesting comp for age and contract expectations is the deal the Phillies handed Cliff Lee in 2010. At the time we were to understand that Lee took an under market deal to go to Philly because he liked the city and the team (it is a nice city). As if a contract of 5 years at $120mil is somehow under market... but Lee was 32 at the time coming of great run with the Rangers and with a Cy Young under his belt. And for the most part Lee has lived up to his end of the deal with 3 very good years with the Phillies with 2014's injury plagued season fresh in people's minds. Lee hasn't helped the Phillies contend those years, but he sure isn't the reason why they are where they are today.

However, James Shields is not necessary Cliff Lee. Lee's career ERA+ of 118 is largely held down by his first 6 years in the league when he was slightly better than average overall, but since his Cy Young in 2008 he has been a straight beast while on a barnstorming tour of country. Shields just hasn't been THAT good. And it would seem to me if anyone one could qualify as an "ace" it would be Lee. Shields is not at that level. He's just a tick below.

So where does that leave us? It may be worthwhile to examine the potential suitors for Shields. The teams that most commonly come up are the Dodgers (in on everybody), RedSox (people believe they need more pitching), Giants (FA spurned World Series Champs), and the Yankees (so many reasons). RedSox and (new) Dodger management don't seem like the types to be paying $20+mil per year to pitchers who will eventually be 37. If he winds up with either of those teams it will be something closer to 3yrs/$70, which still seems unlikely. I don't buy the Giants paying any more than the RedSox or Dodgers, because even though they could use a guy like Shields, they sure don't need him. The Yankees? I don't know, its possibe, but if they were going to spend big on a pitcher it seems like Scherzer would be their guy. Plus don't underestimate Brian Cashman's position here. He's got a major rebuilding process ahead of him and I'm sure he's actually pretty excited for the opportunity. Paying aging pitchers lots of money won't dig the Yankees out the hole they are in and Cashman knows it.

So for the kind of money Shields is reportedly seeking we may need to look at the fringe candidates. The Texas Rangers could be a possibility, but may be a little gun shy of FA's with recent experiences with Shin Soo Choo and Prince Fielder (traded I know, but the point is there). There's no way Padres are really serious on this one. The Angel are out there, but they have a lot of financial commitments already on the books. I see the Marlins possibly getting involved, but at that price its a question. Now the Tigers might be a stealth team in this if they miss out on Scherzer. They could use some more quality, proven pitching to keep up in the AL Central and ownership is more than willing to spend when needed. 

Another team that keeps coming up for me is the Houston Astros. I know it seems crazy, but how different of a position are the Astros in now from where the Nationals were when they were willing to give Jason Werth that big money deal in 2011. A team rich in prospects that no one saw coming giving an "over market" contract to attract a big name FA. Werth has delivered and the Nats are contenders. Its an eerily similar situation. (I've got more to say about the Astros later)

If Shields wants the money and the years its probably going to come from an up and coming team who has to pay extra to attract players. If we wants to win with an established team, he may need to take fewer years, but the price per year will likely be around the same. However, the prospect of leading a rising team to the promise-land while being paid a truckload of money to do it may be just the kind of thing that gets "Big Game" James going.