Bogaerts, Tatis, Machado, Soto. Padres Payroll.

[Mongoose]

I realize MLB is much more profitable than owners let on. Actual cashflow from SNY (Mets local TV) is about $420M a year. Between MLB's national TV deal, stadium revenue, concessions, merchandise, it's immensely lucrative. But the Mets play in a very big market. San Diego doesn't.

I see the Padres have just signed Xander Bogaerts to an 11 year, $275,000,000 contract. They offered Aaron Judge $400M for 9 years. They probably have about a billion dollars in guaranteed deals on the books now. I don't feel like checking. I'm sure they plan on signing Soto.

Where are they getting their money from? Do they know something about inflation the rest of us don't? It seems a bit odd that they're in a position to acquire all this talent. I feel like there's something I don't know, but I don't care enough to investigate.

They're mid-market. If they can afford these contracts, most of the rest of the league can. Either that, or something funny is going on.

Anybody better informed than I am?

[That_guy]

Your questions are good ones.

First, Tatis should be highly doubtful he'll stay with the team at SS. Bogaerts is far mor proven than the streaky Tatis, who as we know, has been a PED user.

IMO, teams are throwing longterm contract money around with a belief that their talent under contract reflects bigtime on franchise valuation. That is the only explanation I can imagine.

Also IMO, Tatis will be on the trading block.

[Los Bravos]

Also IMO, Tatis will be on the trading block.

I agree. That seems very likely to me.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

MLB teams have always had more money than they let on. By a huge amount. Remember when Reggie Jackson signed with the Yankees after the 1976 season? Most people probably think that the Yankees offered the most money. That is incorrect. Both the Montreal Expos and the San Diego Padres offered more money to Reggie. But Reggie had his mind set on playing for the Yankees. So how where two supposed historical small market/poor teams like the Expos and Padres able to offer contracts comparable to what the Yankees could offer?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

November 11, 1976, Spokesman-Review pg 13

1976-11-29 Spokesman-Review pg 13.jpg

[Mongoose]

Also IMO, Tatis will be on the trading block.

At this point, unless Tatis reestablishes value, the Padres would have to eat a lot of that contract.

MLB teams have always had more money than they let on. By a huge amount. Remember when Reggie Jackson signed with the Yankees after the 1976 season? Most people probably think that the Yankees offered the most money. That is incorrect. Both the Montreal Expos and the San Diego Padres offered more money to Reggie. But Reggie had his mind set on playing for the Yankees. So how where two supposed historical small market/poor teams like the Expos and Padres able to offer contracts comparable to what the Yankees could offer?

MLB owners, with the collusion of the media, have long obfuscated how profitable the sport is.

Regional sports networks are like a bagman for hiding local TV profits from revenue sharing. I'd been trying to find out how much the Wilpons were deriving here for years. The New York Times gave cash flow of $120M, but I've learned not to trust them. An advertising trade paper said revenue was about $480M. The amount Steve Cohen bid for the remaining 10 years of SNY's contract finally answered the question. The advertising trade paper was almost on the money.

It's the same in sports globally. Football (soccer) teams in the UK and Europe often claim tiny profits, or net losses. But multi-billion dollar valuations don't happen unless P/E ratio backs it up.

I'm just curious as to whether there's something about the Padres' situation that's any different from the rest of the league.

[dominik]

Maybe the padres owner is willing to lose some money and justs wants to win a title? Usually owners want to make money but there might be an exception where on old owner says "screw it" and is willing to lose 15-20 mil per year in order to win a title.

Mike illitch was like that in his final years, his sons probably didn't like it but he knew he only had a couple years left so he tried everything to buy a title (which he came short of of course by losing that WS to SF)

[That_guy]

The part which has changed, IMO, was evident over the postseason this year. Games were attended, not by senior citizen baby boomers, nor stereotype SoCal airheads, but by passionate fans younger than 40. In a big way, the vibe during the Padres' PS home games this Fall was almost like that of a college football game. Philly had something much the same, and the media may have made more out of what was going on in Philly. Still, I noticed the Padres' crowd first, and it left this fan convinced this just isn't your Dad's fanbase in SoCal.

Padre management may have picked up on that, or have done so over the past few years maybe. When the change occurred, I wouldn't have a clue. The change is here now, in any case. With a changed fanbase, the Padres are willing to spend.

Meanwhile, as two thirds of SoCal baseball franchises are willing to spend, the third (Angels) is still in doubt.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The part which has changed, IMO, was evident over the postseason this year. Games were attended, not by senior citizen baby boomers, nor stereotype SoCal airheads, but by passionate fans younger than 40. In a big way, the vibe during the Padres' PS home games this Fall was almost like that of a college football game. Philly had something much the same, and the media may have made more out of what was going on in Philly. Still, I noticed the Padres' crowd first, and it left this fan convinced this just isn't your Dad's fanbase in SoCal.

Padre management may have picked up on that, or have done so over the past few years maybe. When the change occurred, I wouldn't have a clue. The change is here now, in any case. With a changed fanbase, the Padres are willing to spend.

Meanwhile, as two thirds of SoCal baseball franchises are willing to spend, the third (Angels) is still in doubt.

I've been a baseball fan and a SF Giants since 1976 so I've seen the Padres quite a lot. Never in my life have I seen the Padres have so many hardcore fans, In 2022 they drew 2,987,470 people at home. That is their second highest total in franchise history. I checked the Padres BBR page and it looks like in the Padres had a lot of fans come out in the mid 2000's. Four of their top five attendance seasons were 2004 (1), 2005 (3), 2007 (4), and 2006 (5). The 2008 season is their 9th highest attendance season despite losing 99 games. It looks like the Padres serious spending has caught the attention of the local population.

[Mongoose]

Ah, Peter Seidler - The O'Malley Family - Walter's grandson!

Walter's father was a crooked Tammany Hall functionary, Walter famously absconded with the Dodgers to Chavez Ravine. I would guess the monies and connections derived ultimately resulted in the success of Seidler Equity Partners.

Loathsome as that family is, I think spending to develop a fan base and increase a team's audience is smart. I'd imagine the Padres' equity value will increase significantly. MLB spends so much time helping its owners extort public money from individual markets, they forget their core business. People like watching competitive teams and great players.

Unfortunately, MLB will probably try to rein in Mets, Phillies, Padres ownership, while John Fisher has a green light to destroy the A's, in an effort to get a big handout.

[dominik]

Seidler is only 62 but he survived cancer (lymphoma) twice.

Eno sarris speculated that due to this he might be a little more liberal with his money (eno said he might have entered the "you only live once" phase of his life).

[GiambiJuice]

Seidler is only 62 but he survived cancer (lymphoma) twice.

Eno sarris speculated that due to this he might be a little more liberal with his money (eno said he might have entered the "you only live once" phase of his life).

God forbid he give it to charity instead.

[bluesky5]

But money ball guys. Teams need to be smarter about how they spend. They just don’t have it.

[Mongoose]

Up the coast, for all their talk, the Giants didn't spend big.

I think that correlates with John Fisher's destruction of the A's brand. Giants have the Bay area locked up, so it wasn't as necessary to sign Correa, or anyone. No local competition.

Pocketing revenue, and not spending appropriately on payroll remains MLB owners' preferred strategy.

[bluesky5]

Up the coast, for all their talk, the Giants didn't spend big.

I think that correlates with John Fisher's destruction of the A's brand. Giants have the Bay area locked up, so it wasn't as necessary to sign Correa, or anyone. No local competition.

Pocketing revenue, and not spending appropriately on payroll remains MLB owners' preferred strategy.

Money. Ball.