GatewayRedbirds.com

To me it's like they have bought in a bit too much into this formula or whatever. It's like "the formula says this kid is worth no more than $44 million. Therefore, any amount above that is waste." Formulas and algorithms should only be a guideline because I highly doubt a number like that takes all the variables into account.

It's like a formula may tell you to give Piscotty a contract extension to squeeze a little surplus value out of that player. But a formula that is trying to maximize surplus value on individual contracts would never tell you to go pay market rate to sign Machado because there is no surplus value. The surplus value in a big signing like that can't be measured the same way. The surplus value is in maybe making the playoffs a couple more times than you otherwise would, in getting fans excited, etc. The value is not in the contract itself. You could come out behind on a contract in terms of WAR per dollar, but it still could be a decent contract if it helped the team overall in some years.

pioneer98 wrote:To me it's like they have bought in a bit too much into this formula or whatever. It's like "the formula says this kid is worth no more than $44 million. Therefore, any amount above that is waste." Formulas and algorithms should only be a guideline because I highly doubt a number like that takes all the variables into account.

It's like a formula may tell you to give Piscotty a contract extension to squeeze a little surplus value out of that player. But a formula that is trying to maximize surplus value on individual contracts would never tell you to go pay market rate to sign Machado because there is no surplus value. The surplus value in a big signing like that can't be measured the same way. The surplus value is in maybe making the playoffs a couple more times than you otherwise would, in getting fans excited, etc. The value is not in the contract itself. You could come out behind on a contract in terms of WAR per dollar, but it still could be a decent contract if it helped the team overall in some years.

Agreed.

pioneer98 wrote: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.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to compare year to year with the forbes article. I just try to stay consistent and use that data throughout a conversation; think it can get rather dicey when people start quoting this stat from one source then another stat for the same source.

I've heard that payroll has been trending downward in comparison to revenue throughout the years and don't necessarily have any opinion one way or another.

dmarx114 wrote:Does Mo get any credit for Mike Leake's performance so far this season?

Or are we just going to continue complaining about Robert, Heyward, and Price?

What credit do you want to give him? I'm glad Leake has pitched well. He still isn't going to be a difference maker at the end of the season IMO.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

pioneer98 wrote: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.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to compare year to year with the forbes article. I just try to stay consistent and use that data throughout a conversation; think it can get rather dicey when people start quoting this stat from one source then another stat for the same source.

I've heard that payroll has been trending downward in comparison to revenue throughout the years and don't necessarily have any opinion one way or another.

It seems to be one of those things where you can find data with some differences in $$$, to support one contention or another. The Doublebirds article that was linked a few pages ago uses presumably the same set of figures throughout, and makes a reasonable argument. I've not read a "this team is spending the same" article which, given how many times I've seen that other one linked, ought to have been written if there was the evidence for it.

I don't know. I do want to say thank you, or apologise, or whatever, to everyone in this thread, because even the person I disagree with the most is still like a tenth as disagreeable as the Cardinals-can-do-no-wrong-ever contingent on a number of websites. I need to remember, the only reason a load of them stay in business is because rubes like me give them the clicks, and stop doing so immediately.

At some point, one of these "should have made it but didn't" deals is going to bite us on the ass, when all the most exciting young players are on other teams. There have been very lean decades for older Cardinals fans.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

dmarx114 wrote:Does Mo get any credit for Mike Leake's performance so far this season?

Or are we just going to continue complaining about Robert, Heyward, and Price?

What credit do you want to give him? I'm glad Leake has pitched well. He still isn't going to be a difference maker at the end of the season IMO.

Leake looks like a decent deal and the Gyorko trade looks very one-sided.

That's two since Beltran left.

pioneer98 wrote:To me it's like they have bought in a bit too much into this formula or whatever. It's like "the formula says this kid is worth no more than $44 million. Therefore, any amount above that is waste." Formulas and algorithms should only be a guideline because I highly doubt a number like that takes all the variables into account.

It's like a formula may tell you to give Piscotty a contract extension to squeeze a little surplus value out of that player. But a formula that is trying to maximize surplus value on individual contracts would never tell you to go pay market rate to sign Machado because there is no surplus value. The surplus value in a big signing like that can't be measured the same way. The surplus value is in maybe making the playoffs a couple more times than you otherwise would, in getting fans excited, etc. The value is not in the contract itself. You could come out behind on a contract in terms of WAR per dollar, but it still could be a decent contract if it helped the team overall in some years.

Buying out arb years does NOTHING to make this team better this year.

Tim wrote:

Leroy wrote:Um, no. How many games over .500 would we be with this kid?

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

The Cards are rarely in position to acquire high end talent. By all reports, this kid has the potential to be a stud. Of course we can't be certain, but what is certain is that if we remain around .500 we won't have many opportunities to draft someone like him. We also are without a first round pick in this upcoming draft.

If you haven't heard of this kid until 3 weeks ago, that is on you, not us. Nobody is asking you to lose sleep over this, but some of us having been reading and following this kid for awhile now. It is another disappointment in a long list of disappointments in the last few years.

Can you not see the talent gap in the core between us and the Cubs? Ian Happ would have been a starter for us on Day 1. They may send him back down. The talent gap is striking and doesn't appear to be getting any closer.

I see people throwing around Machado. Welp I am done getting my hopes up.

I don't know what obtuse means, so yes intentional.

It's on me to not get worked up over something I don't control? And you are doing the right thing be being hurt? Ok. It's on me.

Leroy wrote:

Tim wrote:

Leroy wrote:Um, no. How many games over .500 would we be with this kid?

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

The Cards are rarely in position to acquire high end talent. By all reports, this kid has the potential to be a stud. Of course we can't be certain, but what is certain is that if we remain around .500 we won't have many opportunities to draft someone like him. We also are without a first round pick in this upcoming draft.

If you haven't heard of this kid until 3 weeks ago, that is on you, not us. Nobody is asking you to lose sleep over this, but some of us having been reading and following this kid for awhile now. It is another disappointment in a long list of disappointments in the last few years.

Can you not see the talent gap in the core between us and the Cubs? Ian Happ would have been a starter for us on Day 1. They may send him back down. The talent gap is striking and doesn't appear to be getting any closer.

I see people throwing around Machado. Welp I am done getting my hopes up.

I don't know what obtuse means, so yes intentional.

It's on me to not get worked up over something I don't control? And you are doing the right thing be being hurt? Ok. It's on me.

Obtuse means you're rounded at the free end. ( Old WKRP joke. I only expect doeboy, Sigh, or Rad to remember this.)


From Goold's chat:http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/C ... 39eaf54dd0

Short answer: yes. Yes, again. Yes, a dozen times. This was the lesson of a past winter, and its reinforced here for a teenager. So, yes. But here's the difference between this weekend and any winter --- Luis Robert was the kind of elite, hype, huge-watt amateur the Cardinals rarely get their chance at. They, by design don't want to --- because they want to contend, they want to be in the playoffs, they want to draft late in the first round. The stars and money aligned for this to be their shot. And they will say they feel better about spending more than $50+ million on an established player than a prospect. Hold them to that.
by Derrick Goold 11:13 AM
ReplyPermalink

What was the sense around the FO after the latest Cuban sensation opted for life on Chicago's South Side ... Know they go in with a strict-disciple number in line ... but has the market gone so batty that Cardinals are going to have to re-calibrate their fiscal thinking for this market in the future?

Quick, somebody get Leroy an encyclopedia.