Forbes Baseball Team Values

[Brew crew 92]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

[pacopete4]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

You just can’t be serious with some of these takes.

[HiAndTight]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

 

I'm not sure anything has been "proven."

 

 

But let me ask, what has Mark A done that suggests he's NOT trying to go all in this year? Is it because Stearns doesn't want to give Kimbrel a 6 year 108 million dollar deal? Or because he hasn't signed Kuechel to a 1 year 18 million dollar deal?

[HiAndTight]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

You just can’t be serious with some of these takes.

 

 

I don't think his premise is wrong. We constantly support this team. This year we're second to the Giants in spending per person, but we've been #1 several years.

 

So does the owner "owe" us a genuine effort to win? I believe he does.

 

I just guess I'm not seeing where he's failing to do so. If Kimbrel would take 1 year and 15 million and Mark A refused, MAYBE I'd agree in that scenario.

 

But I have a feeling Attanasio wanted Kimbrel signed as much as anyone on here. But this isn't a one year window. I'm looking at next years team and frankly that team looks like it's lined up to be just as good, provided we're healthy.

 

So instead of a crazy one year "all in," lets make it a "4 year mostly in, but not stupidly all in" type of window.

[Brew crew 92]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

You just can’t be serious with some of these takes.

 

So you don’t agree we over-perform as a fan base?

 

Or is it that we haven’t over-performed for enough years?

 

Or is it you believe our owner truly is “all in” THIS year financially?

 

Be careful how you answere the last question, with all of this new information.

[tomwopat]

I'm not saying they should spend it on payroll, only that they can. And that whatever limits they have on payroll are self imposed.

 

It's self imposed because they are not stupid!

 

Steve Ballmer paid $2 Billion for the Clippers. Was it a good deal? Probably not, but it was his one chance to buy an NBA team in Los Angeles.

 

Sometimes the super wealthy will spend their money in was that are pleasing to them, without regard to whether or not they turn an annual profit.

 

Precisely-- this to me says that the valuation is mostly propped up by the scarcity of the resource (i.e. that there's an artificially limited amount of top-tier sports franchises), than their ability to deliver profit over time. They're still rich people's playthings, in other words.

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk. Mark A. is in a unique position where he can be a fan and also reap the monetary benefits of a competitive franchise (moreso than other markets, I'd wager, as we see in the revenue per fan number), but I still think that he and his management team hold each other accountable to making good business decisions. This isn't a Mike Ilitch-esque situation where he treats the team primarily as a philanthropic endeavor, or a European football club with owners of limitless wealth that are willing to lose tons of money in the short term in order to stratify the competitive landscape and wrest control over emerging revenue sources.

[Brew crew 92]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

You just can’t be serious with some of these takes.

 

 

I don't think his premise is wrong. We constantly support this team. This year we're second to the Giants in spending per person, but we've been #1 several years.

 

So does the owner "owe" us a genuine effort to win? I believe he does.

 

I just guess I'm not seeing where he's failing to do so. If Kimbrel would take 1 year and 15 million and Mark A refused, MAYBE I'd agree in that scenario.

 

But I have a feeling Attanasio wanted Kimbrel signed as much as anyone on here. But this isn't a one year window. I'm looking at next years team and frankly that team looks like it's lined up to be just as good, provided we're healthy.

 

So instead of a crazy one year "all in," lets make it a "4 year mostly in, but not stupidly all in" type of window.

 

Truly all in means signing Kuechel to the 1 year deal he’s reportedly willing to sign. That’s the move I think we all agree would help this team tremendously right now.

[pacopete4]

What about the customer that OVER-PERFORMS to give said owner the now proven cash cow.

 

Over-performs year after year after year......

 

We do deserve an honest “all in” don’t we?

 

You just can’t be serious with some of these takes.

 

So you don’t agree we over-perform as a fan base?

 

Or is it that we haven’t over-performed for enough years?

 

Or is it you believe our owner truly is “all in” THIS year financially?

 

Be careful how you answere the last question, with all of this new information.

 

No matter what’s said to you, you’ll continue to spew your same agenda. You’ll tell me he should be willing to lose money for a chance at a winner because it’s not your money we are talking about. Very easy to spend others money for your entertainment. It’s truly remarkable how you dismiss MA and all that he has done and is doing for this franchise because you don’t get your way on adding a free agent to our pen. It’s beyond childish and flat out silly.

 

And yes, our fan base might’ve outperformed last year but that’s what occurs when you win. But you’re also looking at a club that is middle of the pack in payroll (the highest it’s ever been) and is still at the bottom of the league in market size, revenue and overall value of their team.

[JimH5]

I don't think Attanasio owes us anything. He's been a terrific owner and I'm glad that he is here.

 

But if he wants to win a World Series, while Uecker and Selig and Aaron are alive, this is the year.

 

I don't think Dallas Keuchel should be had at any price, nor Craig Kimbrel. But this also isn't the time to be thrifty. He has made a very nice return on his investment.

[MrTPlush]

A reminder that the team has increased in value by more than $700 million since Mark A bought the team.

 

They can afford to sign or retain any player. Being a small market team should not limit their roster construction.

 

That $700 million is imaginary though. It doesn't exist unless you sell the team.

 

What are profits and expenses? That is what matters.

 

 

It's not imaginary. If they sold the team now, they'd make several times what they purchased it for. That's not just created in someone's imagination.

 

And when you talk about billionaires, about 90 pct of the time their value is "imaginary" in the way you're using it. Hell, Trump includes his names value in how much he's worth. How much he values the number put on his name. That's imaginary. The value of Trump towers vs the actual cash he has is not imaginary.

 

 

PS-Just using the famous rich President as an example. NOT trying to argue about him in any way at all.

 

How exactly is he spending that $700mil without selling the team? It has no tangible value right now. He isn’t going to overspend or go into debt on the teams value to put a better product on the field. The opportunity cost of doing that with tens of millions would end up being hundreds of millions by the time he is dead and his grandkids sell the team.

[HiAndTight]

 

No matter what’s said to you, you’ll continue to spew your same agenda. You’ll tell me he should be willing to lose money for a chance at a winner because it’s not your money we are talking about. Very easy to spend others money for your entertainment. It’s truly remarkable how you dismiss MA and all that he has done and is doing for this franchise because you don’t get your way on adding a free agent to our pen. It’s beyond childish and flat out silly.

 

And yes, our fan base might’ve outperformed last year but that’s what occurs when you win. But you’re also looking at a club that is middle of the pack in payroll (the highest it’s ever been) and is still at the bottom of the league in market size, revenue and overall value of their team.

 

 

It's far more than just last year that we've "outperformed" in supporting this team.

 

We're been 1st in spending per fan numerous times. We're 2nd this year.

 

I think Attanasio has acted accordingly. I just think you dismiss how much this fan base has supported the Brewers by saying it was just last year and only because we were winning that we did so.

[HiAndTight]

 

How exactly is he spending that $700mil without selling the team? It has no tangible value right now. He isn’t going to overspend or go into debt on the teams value to put a better product on the field. The opportunity cost of doing that with tens of millions would end up being hundreds of millions by the time he is dead and his grandkids sell the team.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by such a silly question. If your position is that value that isn't just cash is imaginary, than most billionaires wealth is "imaginary."

 

It's ridiculous to call it imaginary.

 

As for the rest of your post, I don't know who you're talking to or what you're talking about as I never argued the value of the team should be reflected in the payroll whatsoever.

 

And I really have no idea what you mean by saying him going into debt, an assumption you are making, that he doesn't have the financial resources to spend more right now, would somehow result in "hundreds of millions" in losses by the time his grandkids sold the team.

 

I don't get what any of this has to do with my reply that the increased value in the team isn't "imaginary" money. It's a real valuation. Are stocks imaginary? Because that piece of paper has no value until you sell...unless of course, you take out a loan against it. Is the increased estimated value of my home that I bought in 2008 "imaginary?"

 

I'd honestly like to know your answer on that, because if it's yes, than most of the wealth in the United States is "imaginary."

 

 

There is a difference between being able to immediately access your resources and them being imagined.

[jjgott]

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk.

 

Someone on Twitter pulled out this quote from the article and I think it is an interesting topic to explore: "The Dodgers had operating income of $95 million last season, the most in baseball. Such richness is a plus when, as in the case of the Dodgers, the owners are in the process of selling small stakes in the team to limited partners. The new investors will pay more if they believe a dividend is more likely than a capital call."

 

There may be owners out there like Balmer or Cuban who aren't worried about the YTY profitability of the team and only about the appreciation of the team, but there are probably an increasingly number of minority investors that want to see a return on their investment because they want the cash flow every year. Do we know anything about how many minority investors there are in the Brewers? That may give us more of a sense of whether there is an appetite to stomach operating at a loss and going "all-in." If the minority investors are expecting a dividend, they are not going to be too pleased if Mark A says nothing is coming.

[HiAndTight]

 

Precisely-- this to me says that the valuation is mostly propped up by the scarcity of the resource (i.e. that there's an artificially limited amount of top-tier sports franchises), than their ability to deliver profit over time. They're still rich people's playthings, in other words.

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk. Mark A. is in a unique position where he can be a fan and also reap the monetary benefits of a competitive franchise (moreso than other markets, I'd wager, as we see in the revenue per fan number), but I still think that he and his management team hold each other accountable to making good business decisions. This isn't a Mike Ilitch-esque situation where he treats the team primarily as a philanthropic endeavor, or a European football club with owners of limitless wealth that are willing to lose tons of money in the short term in order to stratify the competitive landscape and wrest control over emerging revenue sources.

 

 

Propped up suggests that the value isn't legitimate, or that it's being artificially inflated. The values of teams are certainly increased by the fact that there are only 30 of them available and they rarely come up for sale.

 

I'm not sure I can see where this is increasingly being run like a real business. As opposed to when? When have they not?

[jjgott]

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk.

 

Someone on Twitter pulled out this quote from the article and I think it is an interesting topic to explore: "The Dodgers had operating income of $95 million last season, the most in baseball. Such richness is a plus when, as in the case of the Dodgers, the owners are in the process of selling small stakes in the team to limited partners. The new investors will pay more if they believe a dividend is more likely than a capital call."

 

There may be owners out there like Balmer or Cuban who aren't worried about the YTY profitability, only about the appreciation of the team, but there are probably an increasingly number of minority investors that want to see a return on their investment because they want the cash flow every year. Do we know anything about how many minority investors there are in the Brewers? That may give us more of a sense of whether there is an appetite to stomach operating at a loss and going "all-in." If the minority investors are expecting a dividend, they are not going to be too pleased if Mark A says nothing is coming.

[Brew crew 92]

I never said, not once, that our owner should lose money. What I said was he should forgo the annual profit to truly go “all in” this year. You attribute false statements to me, I’m going to correct them.

 

I’ve never said Attanasio was a bad owner.

I said he’s a good owner, BETTER than most.

 

Attanasio is the one who said the brewers are “all in” this year, that was before we lost 2 high leverage pen arms. Why is it silly to expect our owner to do what he said he’d do this year?

 

High probability Kuechel will sign a one year deal north of QO. Now either stearns doesn’t want him for that $ or can’t spend the $. I personally think it’s the latter.

[HiAndTight]

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk.

 

Someone on Twitter pulled out this quote from the article and I think it is an interesting topic to explore: "The Dodgers had operating income of $95 million last season, the most in baseball. Such richness is a plus when, as in the case of the Dodgers, the owners are in the process of selling small stakes in the team to limited partners. The new investors will pay more if they believe a dividend is more likely than a capital call."

 

There may be owners out there like Balmer or Cuban who aren't worried about the YTY profitability of the team and only about the appreciation of the team, but there are probably an increasingly number of minority investors that want to see a return on their investment because they want the cash flow every year. Do we know anything about how many minority investors there are in the Brewers? That may give us more of a sense of whether there is an appetite to stomach operating at a loss and going "all-in." If the minority investors are expecting a dividend, they are not going to be too pleased if Mark A says nothing is coming.

 

 

Well, they don't have to like it. Attanasio is the majority owner. They really don't have any recourse.

 

 

It would be interesting to see how fans would react if they could actually invest in the team. AS though the stock in Green Bay was a real stock. I wonder how many fans would rather they not sign those free agents so they got a few thousand dollars more from their dividend. Totally different situation comparing working class people to those wealthy enough to purchase even a minority stake into a major league baseball team however.

[HiAndTight]

I never said, not once, that our owner should lose money. What I said was he should forgo the annual profit to truly go “all in” this year. You attribute false statements to me, I’m going to correct them.

 

I’ve never said Attanasio was a bad owner.

I said he’s a good owner, BETTER than most.

 

Attanasio is the one who said the brewers are “all in” this year, that was before we lost 2 high leverage pen arms. Why is it silly to expect our owner to do what he said he’d do this year?

 

High probability Kuechel will sign a one year deal north of QO. Now either stearns doesn’t want him for that $ or can’t spend the $. I personally think it’s the latter.

 

I think it's the prior. Kuechel is a soft-tossing lefty who gives up a lot of hits and does not get many strikeouts. I personally don't like him at 20 million for one year.

[Brew crew 92]

I never said, not once, that our owner should lose money. What I said was he should forgo the annual profit to truly go “all in” this year. You attribute false statements to me, I’m going to correct them.

 

I’ve never said Attanasio was a bad owner.

I said he’s a good owner, BETTER than most.

 

Attanasio is the one who said the brewers are “all in” this year, that was before we lost 2 high leverage pen arms. Why is it silly to expect our owner to do what he said he’d do this year?

 

High probability Kuechel will sign a one year deal north of QO. Now either stearns doesn’t want him for that $ or can’t spend the $. I personally think it’s the latter.

 

I think it's the prior. Kuechel is a soft-tossing lefty who gives up a lot of hits and does not get many strikeouts. I personally don't like him at 20 million for one year.

 

Ok, that’s your opinion, although I think most on this board would disagree.

[HiAndTight]

I never said, not once, that our owner should lose money. What I said was he should forgo the annual profit to truly go “all in” this year. You attribute false statements to me, I’m going to correct them.

 

I’ve never said Attanasio was a bad owner.

I said he’s a good owner, BETTER than most.

 

Attanasio is the one who said the brewers are “all in” this year, that was before we lost 2 high leverage pen arms. Why is it silly to expect our owner to do what he said he’d do this year?

 

High probability Kuechel will sign a one year deal north of QO. Now either stearns doesn’t want him for that $ or can’t spend the $. I personally think it’s the latter.

 

I think it's the prior. Kuechel is a soft-tossing lefty who gives up a lot of hits and does not get many strikeouts. I personally don't like him at 20 million for one year.

 

Ok, that’s your opinion, although I think most on this board would disagree.

 

 

You think most people would disagree with what? On how good Kuechel is, or that it's Stearns who doesn't want him at that money rather than Mark A who won't spend the money?

[Brew crew 92]

I never said, not once, that our owner should lose money. What I said was he should forgo the annual profit to truly go “all in” this year. You attribute false statements to me, I’m going to correct them.

 

I’ve never said Attanasio was a bad owner.

I said he’s a good owner, BETTER than most.

 

Attanasio is the one who said the brewers are “all in” this year, that was before we lost 2 high leverage pen arms. Why is it silly to expect our owner to do what he said he’d do this year?

 

High probability Kuechel will sign a one year deal north of QO. Now either stearns doesn’t want him for that $ or can’t spend the $. I personally think it’s the latter.

 

I think it's the prior. Kuechel is a soft-tossing lefty who gives up a lot of hits and does not get many strikeouts. I personally don't like him at 20 million for one year.

 

Ok, that’s your opinion, although I think most on this board would disagree.

 

He’s a lefty so there’s that. Eat a lot of innings. Ground ball pitcher. Playoff experience. Why would stearns reportedly be interested in Kuechel early on when his price would have been much higher and now that its dropped not be interested?

[Brew crew 92]

I think most would want him for a one year deal

[tomwopat]

 

That being said, they're increasingly being run like real businesses, as any reasonably-run franchise can pull a healthy profit without much risk.

 

Someone on Twitter pulled out this quote from the article and I think it is an interesting topic to explore: "The Dodgers had operating income of $95 million last season, the most in baseball. Such richness is a plus when, as in the case of the Dodgers, the owners are in the process of selling small stakes in the team to limited partners. The new investors will pay more if they believe a dividend is more likely than a capital call."

 

There may be owners out there like Balmer or Cuban who aren't worried about the YTY profitability of the team and only about the appreciation of the team, but there are probably an increasingly number of minority investors that want to see a return on their investment because they want the cash flow every year. Do we know anything about how many minority investors there are in the Brewers? That may give us more of a sense of whether there is an appetite to stomach operating at a loss and going "all-in." If the minority investors are expecting a dividend, they are not going to be too pleased if Mark A says nothing is coming.

 

 

Well, they don't have to like it. Attanasio is the majority owner. They really don't have any recourse.

 

 

It would be interesting to see how fans would react if they could actually invest in the team. AS though the stock in Green Bay was a real stock. I wonder how many fans would rather they not sign those free agents so they got a few thousand dollars more from their dividend. Totally different situation comparing working class people to those wealthy enough to purchase even a minority stake into a major league baseball team however.

 

I'm curious what the profile of the minority owners are. I wonder if they're the type that have a decent chunk of their wealth in the club so they can brag to their golf buddies, or more serious investors that believe sports franchises offer the most growth opportunity. I would have guessed it be the former, but that Twitter quote gives me pause.

 

In either case I'm guessing they're more risk averse than Mark. So when he has to decide about taking risks, he needs to consider not only about making the most logical business decisions, but also how he'll sell the decision it to the minority owners. He could always take a nuclear option and completely disregard their opinion, but I don't see Mark as one that would jeopardize his reputation in the business world.

 

I also wonder how leveraged the current owners of the Dodgers are. Maybe them looking to minimize their risk by selling off non-essential pieces of their ownership, and reducing their vulnerability is more of a driver of operating income than maximizing their ROI on the sale.

[Patrick425]

He has made a very nice return on his investment.

 

 

Jim, I believe you are one of the smartest posters on this site and I usually agree with most of what you post. I also understand that you have said many times that you don't necessarily think they should do what you have illustrated, but that they could. So, maybe we really are not that far apart on this subject.

 

However, just to be clear. Attanasio has not realized or made any return yet on his investment. It's all on paper. Sports teams values seem to always go up and not down. So it does appear that his investment is safe and he will eventually get a nice return. However, nothing in life is guaranteed. There is no guarantee that the Brewers will be worth $1 Billion 5, 10, 20 years from now or whenever he decides to cash out. I have zero expectation for him to leverage his investment gain to date in order to aquire high contract players. Not to mention, acquiring such players does not always pay off.

[JimH5]

I don't know what a minority owner would expect for a return on their investment. Some investments are dividend producers, others are sold based on growth potential. In either case, I'd expect that Mark A would have made his plans known to them so they're in alignment on what the investment produces for those owners.

 

Even if it has not paid a dividend, an original investor in the Attanasio group would have seen his investment multiply by 4 or 5 times in 14 years. Not too bad at all.