Why the Cards will go +$100m soon.

and I assume we can produce most of the bench internally. If we pencil in Boggs, Hawk, Motte, Sanchez and Franklin from the right side, we only need a couple of LOOGYs. Certainly, the OF should have Jay, Craig, Henley and perhaps DJ Tools ready for significant MLB playing time, and if only 2 of those guys “make” it, that’s all the OF possibilities covered. I think Tyler Greene is pencilled into the Lugo role, long-term, and presumably we can pencil in Descalso as, at the very least, a backup-quality 2B.

Lynn will probably be ready to play some sort of role in 2011, so, as long as Garcia doesn’t suck, we can still probably put out at least a league average rotation internally. Then there’s a couple of guys who are longshots but who may figure something out in 2010 (Ottavino is probably top of that list) and fit into the major league plans somehow.

You have to assume at least a handful of these borderline guys either won’t pan out for some reason, won’t be trusted with a major league job, and/or that there’ll be some injuries here or there, so we probably will need a couple of free agents, but I assume we can get a mid-to-back of the rotation starter for ~$5m, and maybe fill any other holes fairly cheaply.

I think we CAN, therefore, make a competitive team in 2011 without going beyond $100m much (if at all), but you have to think that a Pujols extension is imminent. I’d be fine bumping payroll to $105m (or even $110m) just to afford that, and spend whatever excess we have (probably in the $10m range) to pick up spare parts to fill the holes.

I don’t really see how the new Pujols deal won’t push the team over $100M, at least in the short term therefore, as soon as 2011 or 2012

The Red Sox had the highest prices from 2000-2009 until the Yankees charged higher last season. I know correlation is not causality, but it wouldn’t be a bad assumption.

According to the website Team Marketing Report’s Fan Cost Index, the Cards are 10th. This index includes more than just tickets. Here is a link to the 2009 study

I think it was <$10m. Of course, wild guesswork may not be able to estimate the value very evenly, and there are HUGE profits to be made by making the post-season every year (which we’d hope to do more often than not by tying up Holliday & Albert long-term), so it may be possible to take a “risk”, bumping payroll and hoping the extra revenue from post-season appearances can cover it.

A soccer club in England near where I live (Leeds United) did a similar thing a few years ago. This, however, may serve as a slightly cautionary tale, as they took on a succession of huge contracts and basically gambled on their ability to be successful in the league and qualify for european competition every year (basically analogous to making the post-season in baseball, give or take). One year (2001 or 2002, I think) they had a very poor season, and went on a horrible downward spiral, selling off their players for the proverbial cents-on-the-dollar, and tumbling down the english soccer leagues. They went bankrupt, nearly lost their stadium to pay off debts, went through 3 or 4 different ownership groups, and still (comparatively) suck. They’re only just on their way back up, and it’ll take them well over a decade to recover all the ground they lost.

the latest CBA reduced the amount of revenue sharing significantly, from 48 percent to 31 percent. So the 2007-2009 numbers will be much smaller than what is found in those links.

sorry, PD posters, the cards are not turning into the Boston Red Sox overnight.

realistically, if we’re looking at an 8-10 year deal, $25m is about market value, it’s not as if he’s even giving us a big discount in that (and a deal the length that he’ll get is pretty unprecedented in terms of long-term injury risk, too). If he’s “not bothered about money” as he’s said several times, he really should sign for a touch more than Holliday got (if he’s still concerned about being the top dog). 8 years, $20m/yr should be plenty enough.

$30m/yr over 8-10 years is probably a slight overpay.

I actually think, if the two players are very good, that you can build on a team on a ~$100m payroll whilst paying huge gobs of that to your stars. We’ve got 3B, 2B and SS filled internally at cheap rates for the foreseeable, one or two cost-controlled pitchers, Rasmus and a bevy of guys who will be useful platoon pieces, league-average OFers or 4th OF types. Even if a few of these guys flame out, for the next 3-4 years much of our team will be quite cheap.

We really need to seriously bump payroll in around 2013, 2014, because our farm looks unlikely to develop any high-end talent by that point (assuming we’re picking late in the first round for the next few years, and assuming Shelby Miller doesn’t make it), Holliday and Pujols will both be beginning/in their decline phases and thus won’t be worth more than their contracts pay them, and a few other critical pieces (Molina, Waino, Colby) will either be leaving or not be very cheap any more.

I guess the ultimate concern is that, with the Holliday and Pujols long-term deals, it’s very, very likely that we’ll suck in 2015, 2016 and maybe 2017. I realise that’s a long ways away, but with a weak farm system and two high-paid guys in their mid-to-late 30s at that stage, it’s not implausible that we’ll basically be the 2009 Houston Astros. Another issue that will probably play into it is that GMs are getting better and better, so any advantages we have in the division from having a vaguely competent front office will be gone. Hendry will be canned before that stage, ditto Wade, and the Astros and Cubs have new ownership that may be more likely to employ a competent GM. I suspect Jocketty will be gone too, and the Huntington era may yield a more competitive Pirates. I guess I’d take that for 4 or 5 seasons of good, competitive teams, but there are choppy waters ahead.