My prediction: We sign Robert for a total of $65 mil. Yours?

[MrCrowesGarden]

Ah well. He's asking us to hold the FO accountable, but isn't that kind-of his job?

Yes.

I've accused Goold/P-D of being just extended PR firms for the Cardinals for some time, but I really think he feels stunned by this one. Maybe this is the straw that broke this camel's back. It all goes back to the idea of "if you're not going to spend on this guy, when are you?"

Goold is the beat reporter, so I think he's supposed to get the news, and not give opinions. That's the columnist job.

I read most of his chats, and he does take the team to task when needed.

It's not his job to be a mouthpiece for the organization, which has happened in the past.

I don't think that's accurate. He's a low key, no drama sort.

He has shied away from asking hard questions. I think he and most of the P-D needs a healthier dose of skepticism.

[Johnconrad]

The StL sports media is the softest in the nation.

[Spider John]

I have no idea, but I wonder if part of the reason the team has trouble getting players to come to STL is their rep for being so reluctant to step outside their "comfort level" and be more aggressive to improve the team.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I have no idea, but I wonder if part of the reason the team has trouble getting players to come to STL is their rep for being so reluctant to step outside their "comfort level" and be more aggressive to improve the team.

I would be surprised if that was it. 9 times out of 10 the dollars win out, but even if there's more to it than that, St. Louis likely struggles because compared to other MLB cities it doesn't have as much to appeal to the millionaire athlete. Other cities have more nightlife/activities, better weather, better scenery/location, or some combination of those. I don't mean that to trash the city, I just intentionally moved to the area when I wasn't forced to, but athletes signing these deals are playing a bit of a different game when they're picking a place to live.

[Hoot45]

This site says the Cardinals revenue in 2016 was $310 million:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196 ... ince-2006/

The Cards' 25 man opening day payroll in 2016 was $145 million:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compe ... cardinals/

So that's like 46.7% for 2016. The number vary depending on which ones you use (25 man vs 40 man for example). But the trend is clearly downward since 2005 no matter how you really look at it.

The Cardinals own four of their minor league affiliates, which I understand is rare. The majority of minor league clubs are independently owned (according to milb.com). They also own Ballpark Village. Are revenue and expense from these other parts of the organization counted in some of this "payroll as a percentage of revenue" math? I'm not asking rhetorically, by the way. Genuinely curious. Does the revenue of BPV go into the equation? Do the losses of operating the minor league programs end up anywhere in the math?

Can't remember if this was mentioned before. I think someone maybe alluded to it. But if you use the 40 man roster as your calculation, the Cards spent 60% of their revenue on payroll last year. That's quite a difference.

I know it's pretty difficult to figure out the financials of a privately held business. I wonder sometimes how ignorant we are being when doing this kind of math. It seems dangerous to take this "payroll as a percentage of revenue is declining" narrative as gospel when it comes down to a bunch of unknowns and accounting technicalities. Even more so when you know that the total payroll keeps increasing year over year.

[Spider John]

9 times out of 10 the dollars win out.

That's about right; the Cards offer 9 and another team offers 10.

[tlombard]

I blame it all on Deadspin and their boner for talking trash about the 'Cardinal Way'

[MrCrowesGarden]

This site says the Cardinals revenue in 2016 was $310 million:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196 ... ince-2006/

The Cards' 25 man opening day payroll in 2016 was $145 million:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compe ... cardinals/

So that's like 46.7% for 2016. The number vary depending on which ones you use (25 man vs 40 man for example). But the trend is clearly downward since 2005 no matter how you really look at it.

The Cardinals own four of their minor league affiliates, which I understand is rare. The majority of minor league clubs are independently owned (according to milb.com). They also own Ballpark Village. Are revenue and expense from these other parts of the organization counted in some of this "payroll as a percentage of revenue" math? I'm not asking rhetorically, by the way. Genuinely curious. Does the revenue of BPV go into the equation? Do the losses of operating the minor league programs end up anywhere in the math?

Can't remember if this was mentioned before. I think someone maybe alluded to it. But if you use the 40 man roster as your calculation, the Cards spent 60% of their revenue on payroll last year. That's quite a difference.

I know it's pretty difficult to figure out the financials of a privately held business. I wonder sometimes how ignorant we are being when doing this kind of math. It seems dangerous to take this "payroll as a percentage of revenue is declining" narrative as gospel when it comes down to a bunch of unknowns and accounting technicalities. Even more so when you know that the total payroll keeps increasing year over year.

They're fair questions, and I can't say I know the answer.

I would assume though that the Cardinals spending wrt the 40-man roster isn't unique. If the 40-man roster accounts for 60% of revenue used on payroll, I would imagine it's probably 65-70% for other clubs. The Forbes numbers aren't perfect, but I don't think they can be discounted out of hand. You'd have to assume they're overstating Cardinal revenue and understating everybody else's and have been doing so for a long time.

[pioneer98]

I have no idea, but I wonder if part of the reason the team has trouble getting players to come to STL is their rep for being so reluctant to step outside their "comfort level" and be more aggressive to improve the team.

I would be surprised if that was it. 9 times out of 10 the dollars win out, but even if there's more to it than that, St. Louis likely struggles because compared to other MLB cities it doesn't have as much to appeal to the millionaire athlete. Other cities have more nightlife/activities, better weather, better scenery/location, or some combination of those. I don't mean that to trash the city, I just intentionally moved to the area when I wasn't forced to, but athletes signing these deals are playing a bit of a different game when they're picking a place to live.

Just another reason that they should go over the top once in a while on a contract offer to get top end talent.

[Famous Mortimer]

I sort of agree about this, but, if this is getting some traction with these figures, it might be helpful if someone from the Cardinals were to refute them? Maybe?