SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Long-term CBT considerations on 2025 roster planning
|
|
Post by abrinker on Oct 24, 2024 10:37:45 GMT -5
For this thought experiment, I'm not considering trade options, because of the high variance of budgetary impactsOperating under the following assumptions:1. Ownership may be open to exceeding CBT, but will insist on resetting every third year* 2. FO will prioritize opportunities to extend key players early 3. Ownership is serious about fielding a stronger and more competitive team in 2025 4. FO will prioritize (as stated) starting pitching, bullpen, more lineup balance * In the prior CBA, no team exceeded CBT more than two consecutive seasons, but in the current one, four teams (NYM, NYY, LAD, PHI) have gone over CBT three consecutive seasons, and three (NYY, LAD, PHI) or all (wouldn't be surprised to see NYM go over again with another big FA splash). These markets are significantly larger than BOS, and presumably have significantly higher revenue to sustainably absorb punitive taxes for longer; hence, my assertion that BOS would want to periodically reset. I mean they've shows a reluctance to go over in one season, let alone three straight.Before any additions, the LT payroll (per SP Payroll page) is projected to be $153M, $129M and $131 for the next three years, not including arb estimates, with the ~$20M drop off coming from Giolito's salary coming off the books next year. Beyond that, we don't have any significant payroll coming off the books until 2028. Now let's assume we add the following:
1. FA starter at an AAV of $30M (+/- $3M) for 4+ years 2. Tanner Scott at 4/56 ($14M AAV) 3. Other bullpen additions at $10M for each of the next 2 years 3. Defensive catcher at 2/8 ($4M AAV) 4. Arb impact in 2025 of $13M (based on MLBTR model) 5. I'll come back to RHH later... And then we project arb additions to rise year after year as follows (admittedly WAGs):
2026: $18M ($10M more for Duran, Houck, Crawford; and $8M for Casas and Wong) 2027: $25M ($22M more for guys above, plus $3M for Abreu) These put LT payroll at:
2025: $224M ($17M under CBT) 2026: $218M ($26M) 2027: $239M (??; new CBT) 2028: $205M (??; new CBT) These projections don't include RHH (do we address 2025 with a one-year bridge like TON QO, or do we address with a lower AAV alternative over a longer term, say 3/45?). Also, if Giolito leaves after 2025, we'll have to fill that hole. For this exercise, I'll assume one of our AAA depth guys steps in (otherwise, could be another costly add). Last thing, if FO is interested in locking up some of our young talent to extensions, let's consider what that would add to LT payroll (all of these guys extended pre-arb): - $25M AAV (Witt, Tatis)
- $18M AAV (Alvarez, JRod)
- $11M AAV (Chourio, Acuna - that's a little dated)
If we extended 2-3 of the Big 4 + Casas, seems like we could be looking at at least another $30-$40M added by 2027, which would take LT payroll to somewhere in the range of $270-280M. Now, we don't know what the new thresholds will be, but that's what the FO has to be thinking about.
For these reasons, I wonder if the FO would be more inclined to find a closer and RHH that wouldn't require more than 2-year commitment (either via FA or trade). That would probably take us out of the Scott sweepstakes, and turn us toward guys like Jansen or Yates (not sure we want to pin our hopes on Hendriks bouncing back to his old self), or a trade for someone like Bednar (bounceback?) or Helsley, as a bridge to a homegrown alternative. For RHH, a TON QO makes some sense in that context, but I would prefer someone like Grichuk (who I think could be had for 2 years and is more versatile and disciplined).
Unfortunately, the fact that the Yoshida and Story contracts don't come of the books until 2028 (and neither appear to be tradeable, though I think Yoshida could be) is potentially a big complicating consideration for this offseason. The only way to accomplish these objectives and not be over the CBT for more than two years is by making tough calls to prune the roster. For example, Duran will probably be fairly expensive by 2027. If Anthony shows this season, sell Duran at the end of the season (Abreu will still be cheap, so no payroll relief there). If Casas doesn't seem interested in signing an extension, we have to look to move him before 2027, too, which means we need to plan for a lost-cost replacement there. And, lastly, pitching. Priority 1 has to be filling out the rotation and bullpen with largely young, homegrown guys. (I know that's the plan, but it has to happen to have a sustainable contending roster.)
Of course, if ownership is fine being above CBT for three straight seasons, then the calculus changes, but BOS is a much smaller market than NY or LA (PHI even), so I doubt we have the revenue advantages to behave like those teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 24, 2024 10:46:45 GMT -5
The thing with the CBT is let's just say for the sake of the argument that they go over the first LT threshold by 10M per year 3 years in a row. We're talking 2M, 3M and 5M in penalties as it's 20/30/50% penalties for going over 1, 2 and 3 years. It's not my money obviously but if JH and Co. can't afford to pay what basically should be peanuts to a team like the Red Sox then it would be hard for me to really consider them as all that serious about building a sustainable winning team. I'm not saying they need to spend at LAD, NYY, NYM levels but I am now switching my line of thinking to believe that it is not too much to ask that they go over that first threshold on a continual basis.
The threshold for the 2025 LT is 241M-261M. Once again it really should not be too much to ask that they go to the $250M range on a continual basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Oct 24, 2024 10:50:03 GMT -5
This reality might make trading for a TOR starter more palatable than acquiring a FA. Or, perhaps we may eschew a $25-30M SP option in favor of a Lugo-like $15M converted reliever alternative. These are the bigger picture machinations that the FO has to contend with, and this is where bad long-term contracts like Story, Yoshida, and even Rafaela can really hurt if you don't get them right. I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Crochet, assuming we could get him for a package comparable to the Cease one, but man, we gotta start developing SP, or FA will kill us.
|
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 24, 2024 10:56:20 GMT -5
I think this is where things stand now if you count arb salaries: 2025: $63 million under 2026: $74 million under (Assuming Giolito's $14 million conditional option is not on the books. I would guess ~75% chance it is not) 2027: $56 million under Arb estimates - Duran: 5, 10, 15, 20 Houck: 4.5, 9, 13 Crawford: 3.5, 7, 10, 13 Casas: prearb, 3, 6 Wong: prearb, 3, 6
edit: actually the CBA only runs through 2026, so there is no 2027 CBT number yet, but I suppose first guess should be that the status quo will continue
|
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Oct 24, 2024 10:59:31 GMT -5
The thing with the CBT is let's just say for the sake of the argument that they go over the first LT threshold by 10M per year 3 years in a row. We're talking 2M, 3M and 5M in penalties as it's 20/30/50% penalties for going over 1, 2 and 3 years. It's not my money obviously but if JH and Co. can't afford to pay what basically should be peanuts to a team like the Red Sox then it would be hard for me to really consider them as all that serious about building a sustainable winning team. I'm not saying they need to spend at LAD, NYY, NYM levels but I am now switching my line of thinking to believe that it is not too much to ask that they go over that first threshold on a continual basis. The threshold for the 2025 LT is 241M-261M. Once again it really should not be too much to ask that they go to the $250M range on a continual basis. I understand your point, but that would be a significant change in behavior. Maybe they should do that, but nothing suggests they will operate that way. Perhaps if they were only modestly above the CBT for three years, I could agree with you. My point is look at 2027. It feels like our LT payroll could really explode in 2027 (again, not knowing what the new threshold could be), and at that point we could be paying an heavy tax penalty (at the highest rate). The next reset year isn't really until 2028. Who knows what their constraints are, but the FO has to acknowledge the longer-term planning considerations when they're making roster decisions in 2025, and that context is often not something I consider when evaluating FO moves in the here and now. And I think we need to be realistic relative to those constraints, whether we think they should operate that way or not. I suppose we'll have a good feel for what those constraints appear to be based on the moves they make this offseason. If they're skew to shorter-term commitments, it supports my thesis. If they pursue longer-term commitments, that'll suggest there's a new operating paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Oct 24, 2024 11:04:03 GMT -5
I think this is where things stand now if you count arb salaries: 2025: $63 million under 2026: $74 million under (Assuming Giolito's $14 million conditional option is not on the books. I would guess ~75% chance it is not) 2027: $56 million under Arb estimates - Duran: 5, 10, 15, 20 Houck: 4.5, 9, 13 Crawford: 3.5, 7, 10, 13 Casas: prearb, 3, 6 Wong: prearb, 3, 6
edit: actually the CBA only runs through 2026, so there is no 2027 CBT number yet, but I suppose first guess should be that the status quo will continue
Interesting. Right or wrong, here were the estimates in my model (for 2026-2028): Duran: 9,14,18 Houck: 8,14 Crawford: 6,10,13 Casas: 6,11,18 Wong: 2,4,6 Abreu: --,3,6 Weirdly similar for wild, uneducated guesses. It appears we're comparably uneducated. |
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
Member is Online
|
Post by asm18 on Oct 24, 2024 11:05:29 GMT -5
This is talked about in the Ace trade thread (which are starting to bleed into each other a bit, though I recognize a lot of these pieces are connected) - and if they are intent on not going over 3 years in a row, the ~$60 mil or so they currently have this winter is essentially the uncommitted money they have to play with for the foreseeable future unless they say "f*** it" or get creative somehow? I don't understand how they got themselves in this situation despite only having a handful of long term deals remaining on the books. This doesn't seem to portend the sort of financial flexibility they were supposedly trying to give themselves in the early 2020's.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 24, 2024 11:11:55 GMT -5
I would just argue that it's not necessarily a "significant change in behavior" because the circumstances are changing (or may already have). All we know for certain is that they weren't going to go over the LT on:
- A team that was resetting/rebuilding in an attempt to build a sustainable contender (paraphrasing what was being said when Chaim was hired)
- A team that they don't believe is ready to contend even in the short term (at least a plausible explanation for relative deadline inactivity)
What we don't know is whether or not they believe this team have reached the goal they stated (assuming it was not b/s) and if they'll spend on THAT team (if not, it WAS b/s).
|
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 24, 2024 11:12:10 GMT -5
I think this is where things stand now if you count arb salaries: 2025: $63 million under 2026: $74 million under (Assuming Giolito's $14 million conditional option is not on the books. I would guess ~75% chance it is not) 2027: $56 million under Arb estimates - Duran: 5, 10, 15, 20 Houck: 4.5, 9, 13 Crawford: 3.5, 7, 10, 13 Casas: prearb, 3, 6 Wong: prearb, 3, 6
edit: actually the CBA only runs through 2026, so there is no 2027 CBT number yet, but I suppose first guess should be that the status quo will continue
Interesting. Right or wrong, here were the estimates in my model (for 2026-2028): Duran: 9,14,18 Houck: 8,14 Crawford: 6,10,13 Casas: 6,11,18 Wong: 2,4,6 Abreu: --,3,6 Weirdly similar for wild, uneducated guesses. It appears we're comparably uneducated. The rule of thumb I go off on is that the arbitration is trying to get 40, 60 and 80% of market value in the three years (20% for super two). And then once there is an actual arb number to go off of you just multiply off that instead of needing to guess market value.
For prearby guys where there is no actual number, keep in mind that arb care a lot about how much you've played, so Casas' 2024 season is going to cost him a lot over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 24, 2024 19:11:27 GMT -5
The thing with the CBT is let's just say for the sake of the argument that they go over the first LT threshold by 10M per year 3 years in a row. We're talking 2M, 3M and 5M in penalties as it's 20/30/50% penalties for going over 1, 2 and 3 years. It's not my money obviously but if JH and Co. can't afford to pay what basically should be peanuts to a team like the Red Sox then it would be hard for me to really consider them as all that serious about building a sustainable winning team. I'm not saying they need to spend at LAD, NYY, NYM levels but I am now switching my line of thinking to believe that it is not too much to ask that they go over that first threshold on a continual basis. The threshold for the 2025 LT is 241M-261M. Once again it really should not be too much to ask that they go to the $250M range on a continual basis. I understand your point, but that would be a significant change in behavior. Maybe they should do that, but nothing suggests they will operate that way. Perhaps if they were only modestly above the CBT for three years, I could agree with you. My point is look at 2027. It feels like our LT payroll could really explode in 2027 (again, not knowing what the new threshold could be), and at that point we could be paying an heavy tax penalty (at the highest rate). The next reset year isn't really until 2028. Who knows what their constraints are, but the FO has to acknowledge the longer-term planning considerations when they're making roster decisions in 2025, and that context is often not something I consider when evaluating FO moves in the here and now. And I think we need to be realistic relative to those constraints, whether we think they should operate that way or not. I suppose we'll have a good feel for what those constraints appear to be based on the moves they make this offseason. If they're skew to shorter-term commitments, it supports my thesis. If they pursue longer-term commitments, that'll suggest there's a new operating paradigm. Yeah, I think this offseason will tell us a lot about what ownership’s long term budgeting is gonna look like. It’s been over half a decade since this team was a real competitor with a young core that will be together for several years, and baseball has changed a lot over that span. I’m not sure how much past actions can predict future ones given that context. I’ve always believed that the low spending has always been more about keeping the books clear for when that core was put in place, in tandem with some post-Covid belt tightening while they were out of the playoff picture. It doesn’t make sense to me that the Red Sox can’t afford a $250 million payroll while the Dodgers can afford to spend $400-450 million all in. The revenue disparity isn’t that big. Maybe I’m a fool, but it doesn’t seem like the third time penalties are even a consideration for teams that see themselves as contenders, and if the Red Sox are serious about Going For It next year, then they should operate with the same mindset. |
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
Member is Online
|
Post by asm18 on Oct 24, 2024 23:01:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I think this offseason will tell us a lot about what ownership’s long term budgeting is gonna look like. It’s been over half a decade since this team was a real competitor with a young core that will be together for several years, and baseball has changed a lot over that span. I’m not sure how much past actions can predict future ones given that context. I’ve always believed that the low spending has always been more about keeping the books clear for when that core was put in place, in tandem with some post-Covid belt tightening while they were out of the playoff picture. It doesn’t make sense to me that the Red Sox can’t afford a $250 million payroll while the Dodgers can afford to spend $400-450 million all in. The revenue disparity isn’t that big. Maybe I’m a fool, but it doesn’t seem like the third time penalties are even a consideration for teams that see themselves as contenders, and if the Red Sox are serious about Going For It next year, then they should operate with the same mindset. We may attributing to them a more coherent approach on this than they deserve credit for. 2022 - they sign Trevor Story, go over the luxury tax by almost 7 mil (and then don’t make any trades to go under at the deadline, correctly or not) 2023 - they sign Yoshida (and Jansen, Martin, & Justin Turner) and end up about 7 mil below the CBT… but they also were still intent on bringing Xander back which presumably would have sent them over it if AJ Preller and the Padres don’t lose their minds with their offer? They extend Devers - if Xander re-signs does that affect what happens there financially? (front office change)2024 - they sign Giolito, and extend Bello/Ceddanne. They’re under the CBT by 11 mil This is just kinda all over the place. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,171 
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 25, 2024 6:41:36 GMT -5
I understand your point, but that would be a significant change in behavior. Maybe they should do that, but nothing suggests they will operate that way. Perhaps if they were only modestly above the CBT for three years, I could agree with you. My point is look at 2027. It feels like our LT payroll could really explode in 2027 (again, not knowing what the new threshold could be), and at that point we could be paying an heavy tax penalty (at the highest rate). The next reset year isn't really until 2028. Who knows what their constraints are, but the FO has to acknowledge the longer-term planning considerations when they're making roster decisions in 2025, and that context is often not something I consider when evaluating FO moves in the here and now. And I think we need to be realistic relative to those constraints, whether we think they should operate that way or not. I suppose we'll have a good feel for what those constraints appear to be based on the moves they make this offseason. If they're skew to shorter-term commitments, it supports my thesis. If they pursue longer-term commitments, that'll suggest there's a new operating paradigm. Yeah, I think this offseason will tell us a lot about what ownership’s long term budgeting is gonna look like. It’s been over half a decade since this team was a real competitor with a young core that will be together for several years, and baseball has changed a lot over that span. I’m not sure how much past actions can predict future ones given that context. I’ve always believed that the low spending has always been more about keeping the books clear for when that core was put in place, in tandem with some post-Covid belt tightening while they were out of the playoff picture. It doesn’t make sense to me that the Red Sox can’t afford a $250 million payroll while the Dodgers can afford to spend $400-450 million all in. The revenue disparity isn’t that big. Maybe I’m a fool, but it doesn’t seem like the third time penalties are even a consideration for teams that see themselves as contenders, and if the Red Sox are serious about Going For It next year, then they should operate with the same mindset. This seems right to me, both in baseball terms and in business terms. Spend now when the young core is coming on board, and you increase your chance of winning, your revenues, and the overall value of your investment. I literally am not away of one solid reason for not being willing to go over the first cap by ~$30M, if you see assets that would be valuable. |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Oct 25, 2024 8:54:01 GMT -5
I’m coming close to thinking spending on one of the top FA pitchers does not make sense given the long term budget outlook. If they could somehow win the Soto sweepstakes do that, but otherwise I’m not sure there’s a megadeal that makes sense. Sign a 2nd tier pitcher, trade for another guy you think can take another step. I don’t like locking so much into Burnes/Fried right now. Maybe next offseason makes more sense if the right guy is out there (Sasaki).
|
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Oct 26, 2024 2:42:41 GMT -5
I will say this, boston has done an amazing job in tricking it's own fan base that they aren't a financial powerhouse.
Boston SHOULD be going over the cbt on a pretty consistent basis, 0 excuse not to. Will there be signings that don't work out? Sure...but as long as you don't stack bad contracts, they have the money to survive it.
Boston had a revenue of 506M. The issue is, they spent 43% of that money. Teams like the dodgers/phillies are right around 60%.
Boston is flat out being cheap, spending 43% and spending that 67% on expanding its portfolio.
I'm personally sick of hearing about how the cbt should be some sort of "cap". Markets like Toronto have been going over but boston isn't? Inexcusable.
|
|
kwodes
Veteran
Posts: 577
Member is Online
|
Post by kwodes on Oct 26, 2024 6:35:34 GMT -5
I will say this, boston has done an amazing job in tricking it's own fan base that they aren't a financial powerhouse. Boston SHOULD be going over the cbt on a pretty consistent basis, 0 excuse not to. Will there be signings that don't work out? Sure...but as long as you don't stack bad contracts, they have the money to survive it. Boston had a revenue of 506M. The issue is, they spent 43% of that money. Teams like the dodgers/phillies are right around 60%. Boston is flat out being cheap, spending 43% and spending that 67% on expanding its portfolio. I'm personally sick of hearing about how the cbt should be some sort of "cap". Markets like Toronto have been going over but boston isn't? Inexcusable. do we know their revenue was $506m? |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 26, 2024 6:43:38 GMT -5
Not to mention they spend more money than just what their MLB payroll is. It's not so easy as saying oh well they brought in X dollars and only spent Y dollars on their payroll.
|
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Oct 26, 2024 8:28:25 GMT -5
Not to mention they spend more money than just what their MLB payroll is. It's not so easy as saying oh well they brought in X dollars and only spent Y dollars on their payroll. Sure and I was admittedly using only payroll to revenue which they were 22nd in I believe. However if they are top 6 or so in total money spent while that low in payroll, I think they are overrating the analytical department. What generally wins in oct? It's teams with high payrolls led by high impact players. That doesn't take analytics. Filling out the roster, finding gems etc..sure. but that doesn't make up for not having those high impact guys (betts, freeman, ohtani, judge, soto etc). Boston isn't Oakland or Tampa, they don't NEED to tank for 7 years/get premium picks/develop etc. Now, not to say that stuff isn't important but boston before this new approach had years of bad player development but generally kept chugging along. They also didn't rely on the good waves. For ex when pedroia/ellsbury/XB/Betts etc came up, they weren't expected to be "saviors". |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 26, 2024 8:45:32 GMT -5
Not to mention they spend more money than just what their MLB payroll is. It's not so easy as saying oh well they brought in X dollars and only spent Y dollars on their payroll. Sure and I was admittedly using only payroll to revenue which they were 22nd in I believe. However if they are top 6 or so in total money spent while that low in payroll, I think they are overrating the analytical department. What generally wins in oct? It's teams with high payrolls led by high impact players. That doesn't take analytics. Filling out the roster, finding gems etc..sure. but that doesn't make up for not having those high impact guys (betts, freeman, ohtani, judge, soto etc). Boston isn't Oakland or Tampa, they don't NEED to tank for 7 years/get premium picks/develop etc. Now, not to say that stuff isn't important but boston before this new approach had years of bad player development but generally kept chugging along. They also didn't rely on the good waves. For ex when pedroia/ellsbury/XB/Betts etc came up, they weren't expected to be "saviors". Don't get me wrong I think it's time they start spending over the LT at least the first threshold. I'll be honest I haven't been of that mindset the last few years as I thought the teams had enough upside to be good enough but using hindsight now you can pretty easily make a case the last few seasons if they'd just spent a little more they're playoff teams. No more excuses IMO not to spend $250-260M on the major league roster. |
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Oct 26, 2024 9:46:49 GMT -5
Sure and I was admittedly using only payroll to revenue which they were 22nd in I believe. However if they are top 6 or so in total money spent while that low in payroll, I think they are overrating the analytical department. What generally wins in oct? It's teams with high payrolls led by high impact players. That doesn't take analytics. Filling out the roster, finding gems etc..sure. but that doesn't make up for not having those high impact guys (betts, freeman, ohtani, judge, soto etc). Boston isn't Oakland or Tampa, they don't NEED to tank for 7 years/get premium picks/develop etc. Now, not to say that stuff isn't important but boston before this new approach had years of bad player development but generally kept chugging along. They also didn't rely on the good waves. For ex when pedroia/ellsbury/XB/Betts etc came up, they weren't expected to be "saviors". Don't get me wrong I think it's time they start spending over the LT at least the first threshold. I'll be honest I haven't been of that mindset the last few years as I thought the teams had enough upside to be good enough but using hindsight now you can pretty easily make a case the last few seasons if they'd just spent a little more they're playoff teams. No more excuses IMO not to spend $250-260M on the major league roster. I think the last couple years it would have been foolish to make any short sighted deals (short sighted with long term downside) but really no excuse not to spend and try and load up on short term high aav. Red Sox are in a tricky position so where they will likely have to over spend to get any premium player here to get the ball rolling (if it's via FA obviously). LIke if you're soto/sasaki or whomever and boston, nyy, dodgers, even the Mets offer similar deals...Boston may likely be 4th on the list of destinations. It's to the point where boston can offer 525 for soto, him go elsewhere for similar and boston can come out and say "well, we tried". Similar to the yomomoto sweepstakes. Fact is? They are probably not viewed as a "favorable destination" if money is equal. They'll have to do what they did with price, blow everyone out of the water. |
|
briam
Veteran
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by briam on Oct 26, 2024 14:28:14 GMT -5
Saw this scrolling and thought it related to the CBT discussion.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,857
|
Post by shagworthy on Oct 26, 2024 14:42:30 GMT -5
Saw this scrolling and thought it related to the CBT discussion. It's not as simple as the money you spend. Like anything, it's how wisely it was spent. There are quite a few teams on this list who are north of 45% who many would question their spending, the Blue Jays for example, or the Angels. The Jays are a tough case because on paper that team should be 5x better than they have performed, but they keep doubling down with minimal success. The Angels, well, they are a classic example of spending in the wrong areas needed to foment success. Look, I've not been enamored with the Sox moves since 2019/20. But I don't think it's because they have been cheap per say, I just think they made bad bets, and have lacked a concrete direction. Sometimes when you have too many irons in the fire at any given time you just end up with a bunch of melted iron, and if you don't know how to form it, it's largely useless. That has been the Red Sox, in a nutshell for these past years. Hopefully that changes. |
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Oct 26, 2024 14:52:52 GMT -5
Saw this scrolling and thought it related to the CBT discussion. Interestingly the Orioles and Guardians are the only playoff teams on the left side of that list |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 26, 2024 15:10:18 GMT -5
If you click through the sources the "revenue" figures in that chart are ultimately just made up. Not enough is public knowledge
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 26, 2024 16:33:14 GMT -5
If you click through the sources the "revenue" figures in that chart are ultimately just made up. Not enough is public knowledge But it gets clicks which is all that matters. Facts be dammed |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 26, 2024 17:28:27 GMT -5
If you click through the sources the "revenue" figures in that chart are ultimately just made up. Not enough is public knowledge But it gets clicks which is all that matters. Facts be dammed Do owners ever open up their books? They just cry poverty. |
|
|
