Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
December 19, 2004
Money, Money, Money

John Perricone takes note of all the money that being thrown around and wonders why the Giants aren't spending much of it.

Arizona was on the verge of bankruptcy. They put out some feelers, got a bunch of investors to pony up, and boom. Instead of being $100 million in the hole, they "find" $260 million dollars.

...

A bigger question for Giants fans, (particularly as they watch game-breaking free agents sign everywhere but here), is how come the Giants can't pull something like this off? What is preventing Magowan's partners from either getting some new investors to pony up a little scratch, or doing the ponying up themselves? Anybody got an answer to that one?

The Giants value, (according to this 2002 Forbes piece), was $333 million, and had risen 40% in the previous year. In this year's Forbes piece, we see that the Giants value has risen to $368 million dollars, an increase of over 10% in just over two seasons, and that their revenue stream has risen from $138 million to $153 million. Also noteworthy is that the team's debt/value (which includes stadium debt, a finite aspect that will end in 15 years) has dropped from 59% to 46%.

The SF Giants were purchased for $100 million dollars back in 1992. Here's the Forbes' 2004 Giants' page. That's a difference of $268 million dollars, from what Magowan & company paid for the team, and what it's worth today. If the D'backs could scrape up $260 million to land the players they feel can carry them into contention, why can't the Giants?

When A-Rod signed for $25 million a year, I told people that in a few years that would seem cheap. I was wrong about that. For the first time in the history of free agency, the market took a step backward. It hit bottom last year, but is clearly on the way up again.

And franchise value has a lot to do with it. Every so often someone writes about how the Yankees must be near the point where they can't spend any more money. Baloney. Steinbrenner's original group bought that franchise for $20 million. It's worth a billion now. The Yankees have cash flow, and they have equity. George could walk into any bank tomorrow and get a loan for $400,000,000 and no financier would blink an eye. He could turn around and sign Beltran, Delgado and trade for the Big Unit with money in the bank.

I suspect the Giants have pretty good cash flow numbers, also. They fill their park and Giants jersey's and hats have always been popular. With interest rates low, I suspect they've greatly reduced their debt service over the last few seasons. San Francisco has never had a world championship in baseball, and the franchise has not won a title in 50 years. The new Red Sox ownership knew they had an obligation to their fans to deliver a trophy to the town; the Giants, Indians, White Sox and Cubs have that same obligation to their long suffering fans. It's a good time for the Magowen and company to take out that home equity loan.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:38 AM | Management | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I've often wondered this myself. The Giants are in a major metropolitan area with a good, solid fanbase, and the best player in the game. Why are they so damn cheap!?!? Pay for some players!!! Their team is Bonds, Schmidt, and a bunch of lunkheads. And with Bonds' race to 756, they are going to be packing in the bodies to that stadium and making even MORE money.

Posted by: shawn at December 19, 2004 10:22 AM

How much are the Giants paying off on their stadium? I wonder if that might be the reason; the Rangers had the taxpayers foot a big part of their stadium, so they can go out and spend.

Posted by: Robert at December 19, 2004 10:34 AM

Re: robert

Stadium debt payments have decreased while revenue has increased. Yet despite these positive signs, the giants have continued to lop off payroll (currently projected to a very average 80 mil)

Posted by: Kenshin at December 19, 2004 11:44 AM

You bet you sweet bippy they have the cash. Their reveneue numbers are almost twice their payroll. Thanks for the publicity, David.

:D

Posted by: John at December 19, 2004 12:37 PM

Thanks Kenshin.
I guess it shows that teams can finance their own ballparks and make money.

Posted by: Robert at December 19, 2004 02:40 PM

So the question remains: why don't they spend money on better players? The owner paid for his own stadium, so I would guess that he's not a cheapskate. Why?

Posted by: shawn at December 19, 2004 02:56 PM

In my opinion, it may be something as simple as saving for a rainy day. There will come a time when Bonds is no longer playing, and there isn't as compelling a reason for fans to fill the stadium. At that time, the Giants will have to pay for more players who can draw the fans. If the fans are already being drawn without the spending of all available funds, why spend all available funds? They've shown that they remain a very competitive team, even when they don't spend a ton of money.

Posted by: josh at December 19, 2004 03:22 PM

Depends what you consider competetive. I dont consider maybe winning your division (and absolutely no real chance at the ring) to be competetive for a major market team like the Giants, who have the best bat in baseball, the most beautiful park and have not won a WS in 50 years.

Posted by: Gregory at December 20, 2004 12:27 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?