report: Cubs sign Soriano. 8yr 136m.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a single poster in this thread that is taking into consideration the substantial increased revenues being generated by Major League Baseball?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of these posts isn't that nobody is worth this money, just that Soriano isn't worth this money. In the new market the top players very well may be worth $17 million a year for 8 years - just not a guy like Soriano, who's 31 and who only optimistically can reach elite hitter status.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if, in the new baseball economy, the top players are worth $25-$30 million a year? Does Soriano then become worth the price paid?

I think that's where we're heading very quickly.

My point is that posters in this thread aren't even considering the increased revenues. If revenues were to double, then Soriano would easily be worth that price. But, posters are judging Soriano's new contract based on the salary structure of past years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the type of thought that prevailed in the 1999-2000 baseball market and 1920's/1990's stock market.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the type of thought that prevailed in the 1999-2000 baseball market and 1920's/1990's stock market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Baseball Prospectus wrote a great article on the explosion of free agents, and how it happened in 99-00 didn't necessarily mean that the trend would continue.

Signing a player like A-Rod for the contract he has at his age is one thing. Signing a 31 year old veteran coming off a career year with no place to go but down is something entirely different.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, who cares about his contribution (as measured by various stats) or age or the length of the contract, baseball is making more money, and others will get paid more (who cares if they are better or younger), thus this contract is unassailable.


[/ QUOTE ]

It should have been clear that I was pointing out that Soriano's contract may shortly be typical of players of his caliber. It may even be seen as a bargain in a couple years.

In 1992, Roger Clemens signed a five year deal with the Red Sox for a total of $25.6 million. Many considered the deal outrageous even for the best pitcher in the game. The $5.1 million annual salary was the most money ever paid to a baseball player. Supposedly, it was folly to pay one player so much. Of course, in just a few years, far inferior players were getting paid more than Clemens. Clemens himself would get about a $3 million raise when he left the Sox in 1997 despite having some poor seasons.

With the increased revenues of MLB, players inferior to Soriano could be getting better salaries in just a few years. Do you really believe that is something baseball teams shouldn't be considering when signing players?

[Jack of Arcades]

But in 1992, Roger Clemens was 29, not 31, and was the best pitcher in baseball. How is this similar at all to signing someone who is, at best, a 31-year-old top 75 player for EIGHT YEARS?

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the type of thought that prevailed in the 1999-2000 baseball market and 1920's/1990's stock market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Baseball Prospectus wrote a great article on the explosion of free agents, and how it happened in 99-00 didn't necessarily mean that the trend would continue.

Signing a player like A-Rod for the contract he has at his age is one thing. Signing a 31 year old veteran coming off a career year with no place to go but down is something entirely different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, how much of this extra money is the direct result of all the bad contracts of 1999-2000 finally expiring? I mean, the Dodgers aren't paying Darren Dreifort $11m and the Rangers aren't paying Chan Ho Park $15m anymore. That's a lot of extra $$ to spend.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

If revenues were to DOUBLE? Come on. Are you kidding me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not kidding. I wish this graph broke down revenues and expenses. However, it only shows the overall valuation of the Chicago Cubs. Eight years ago, Forbes valued the franchise at $204 million. Now, they value them at $448 million. That 120% increase in value was almost certainly accompanied by at least that much increase in revenues.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
But in 1992, Roger Clemens was 29, not 31, and was the best pitcher in baseball. How is this similar at all to signing someone who is, at best, a 31-year-old top 75 player for EIGHT YEARS?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Quinn Warren]

6 years/95 million is really not THAT bad. I assume the 2 option years are mutual.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

How about the fact that baseball ratings keep sliding while football, Nascar, and basketball increase? Is that supposed to bode well for revenues?

[/ QUOTE ]

Baeball's new TV deal is signed and goes through the next seven seasons (2007-2013). They're getting paid regardless of any ratings drop.

[ QUOTE ]
...just because players will be overpaid in the future doesn't mean that overpaying for Soriano is a good move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Players are going to get a certain % of revenues. (Is it 60-65% in baseball?) Soriano's salary shouldn't be evaluated based on the $19/year figure. It's properly valued as a % of the overal salaries being paid to players. If everybody's salary is going up, Soriano's has to as well.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those of you who are quoting VORP and other statistics are too focused on the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I'm sure anything I have to say in rebuttal will fall on deaf ears.

[/ QUOTE ]

If VORP is causing you to ignore the economic realities of baseball's future, then you are using the data incorrectly.

[Jack of Arcades]

Most of Soriano's worth is going to come within the next 3 years. If Albert gets his shiny $30 million/yr contract in 4(?) years, Soriano's still going to be overpaid because he's not going to be anywhere near the caliber of player he is now.