STLtoday.com

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:24 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:16 pm

OldRed wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:13 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:08 pm I can't spend time trying to explain something to someone who either can't or won't understand.

What a cope out from a company man who is not a fan.

Your posts mean nothing anymore, Red. Just like your troll tag team partner. It's obvious all you're trying to do is
badger me, which adds absolutely nothing to this forum.

I don't care anything about badgering you. I agree with you on quite a bit. Baseball needs a salary cap, floor, and general economic overhaul. The Cardinals cannot and should not try to compete with LA and New York financially. Bill DeWitt is entitled to turn a profit. They should develop a core of homegrown talent and supplement with outside pieces once the core is in place. Chaim Bloom is the right guy for the job. We agree on all of this.

Where we disagree is on DeWitt's desire to compete. He has allowed the payroll to decline as a percentage of revenues to a level that is unacceptable. All of the above things we agree on can be true and DeWitt can still have allowed atrophy in the roster, payroll, and minor league system. That doesn't bother you, which is fine. It bothers most of the rest of us. Which is also fine.

WLTFE wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:51 pm Red...keep fighting the good fight...but you’re have to be on here 24/7!...and be an expert and know more than everyone else about everything!

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 06:43 am I don't think there is a chance in hell they will institute a salary cap. The rich teams don't want one and the Union doesn't want one.

What I think IS possible is a harsher luxury tax and more sharing of those revenues with the have nots, more penalty for signing high end free agents in the draft, AND a salary floor to satisfy the Union.

There is a way to approach a more balanced competition but face it, the money isn't generated equally and the owners of teams lucky enough to be in big market areas have no reason to share in their good fortune.

45s wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:11 am

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 06:43 am I don't think there is a chance in hell they will institute a salary cap. The rich teams don't want one and the Union doesn't want one.

What I think IS possible is a harsher luxury tax and more sharing of those revenues with the have nots, more penalty for signing high end free agents in the draft, AND a salary floor to satisfy the Union.

There is a way to approach a more balanced competition but face it, the money isn't generated equally and the owners of teams lucky enough to be in big market areas have no reason to share in their good fortune.

The television networks don’t want a cap either…

and they swing a really big hammer..

Cranny wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:21 am

45s wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:11 am

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 06:43 am I don't think there is a chance in hell they will institute a salary cap. The rich teams don't want one and the Union doesn't want one.

What I think IS possible is a harsher luxury tax and more sharing of those revenues with the have nots, more penalty for signing high end free agents in the draft, AND a salary floor to satisfy the Union.

There is a way to approach a more balanced competition but face it, the money isn't generated equally and the owners of teams lucky enough to be in big market areas have no reason to share in their good fortune.

The television networks don’t want a cap either…

and they swing a really big hammer..

Good point. They like teams in the playoffs stacked with stars.

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:08 pm I can't spend time trying to explain something to someone who either can't or won't understand.

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 17:30 pm

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 17:04 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 16:45 pm

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 12:21 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:13 am

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:08 am

ramfandan wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:02 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 10:37 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:36 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:35 am

OldRed wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:33 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:27 am


You’re saying exciting baseball brings the crowd. By that thinking the dodgers and Blue Jays should lead the attendance sheet. And the other post season teams right behind them.

I checked. At 2.7 million and above- SD, Atlanta Philly Mets cubs Dodgers Boston Yanks

Los Angeles Dodgers: 35,703
San Diego Padres: 34,500
New York Yankees: 33,000
Philadelphia Phillies: 32,500
New York Mets: 32,000
Chicago Cubs: 31,500
Atlanta Braves: 31,000
San Francisco Giants: 30,500
Boston Red Sox: 30,000
Houston Astros: 29,500
Toronto Blue Jays: 29,000
Los Angeles Angels: 28,500
Milwaukee Brewers: 28,000
Texas Rangers: 27,500
Colorado Rockies: 27,000
Detroit Tigers: 26,500
St. Louis Cardinals: 26,000

Five of the first six were post season.

Look at the size of the markets.

Thank you , Cranny ! For years now, I don't understand how fans compare stadium attendance of various clubs and not consider the vast difference in metro populations of each. When I brought that up to a buddy a couple years ago, his reply was well NY, LA, and Chicago have TWO teams . My reply to that was .. Well NY has a metro pop. over 20+M , LA has 13-18 M, chicago 9.6-9.9 M while St. Louis has 2.8 M
Even with two MLB teams those 3 markets alone have a range of 10 times to nearly 4 times as many people to draw from to attend games.
It's the same with TV monies generated by teams. LAD get $334M per in their deal with Spectrum while the Cardinals get $50? M maybe from their revised deal in St. Louis after Bally bankruptcy. Some falsely think that a team in St. Louis should be able to go toe to toe financially with the 'big boy' market teams . Under the current system, that is pie in the sky .

Walk me through the Padres’ TV deal and how it compares to the Cardinals’. I’m with you on the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees but there’s no excuse to not do what the Padres do.

The Padres are owned by a private equity group that has access ro almost unlimited funds. They bought Rawlings Sporting Goods not too long ago.

So that therefore means they're deficit spending? You don't know that any more than I do.

What we DO know: according to Spotrac, the Padres earned $432 million in baseball revenue in 2024 (10th), and spent $275 million on payroll in 2025 (6th). That's 63.8% of revenues.

The Cardinals earned $373 million in baseball revenue in 2024 (15th), and spent $160 million on payroll in 2025 (18th). That's 42.9% of revenues.

Now before you go off on debt service and EBITDA and capital calls, look at that from the perspective of the paying customer who's been loyal for decades. They see teams that have no local TV deals at all spending over 20% more of their revenue on investing back into the team. Hell, they see the ATHLETICS spending a higher percentage of revenue on payroll. And your message is, "lower your expectations, the guy wants to make money?" If the Cardinals spent even HALF their revenues on payroll that's an additional $26.5 million in 2025. That's a pitcher. That's a bat that gets them the last few games they need to make the playoffs and share in that revenue.

The system is broken. It needs fixed. Bill DeWitt is cheaping out. Both are indisputable.

Do you have any idea how big the overall Cardinal Organization is? And how incredibly expensive it is to own
a MLB franchise. I really don't think you have any idea.

Neither do you. Say what you want, but there’s no excuse for spending less of your baseball revenue on payroll than the Athletics. None. If it’s too (drat) expensive to own a MLB franchise, why doesn’t he sell?

I think I do more than you. Why don't you take a minute to Google "Cardinal Front Office Directory" and come back to the forum with your thoughts. And while you're at it, look up who pays the compensation of all the minor leagues players at all levels.

icon wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 14:19 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 17:30 pm

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 17:04 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 16:45 pm

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 12:21 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:13 am

desertrat23 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:08 am

ramfandan wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 11:02 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 10:37 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:36 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:35 am

OldRed wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 08:33 am

Los Angeles Dodgers: 35,703
San Diego Padres: 34,500
New York Yankees: 33,000
Philadelphia Phillies: 32,500
New York Mets: 32,000
Chicago Cubs: 31,500
Atlanta Braves: 31,000
San Francisco Giants: 30,500
Boston Red Sox: 30,000
Houston Astros: 29,500
Toronto Blue Jays: 29,000
Los Angeles Angels: 28,500
Milwaukee Brewers: 28,000
Texas Rangers: 27,500
Colorado Rockies: 27,000
Detroit Tigers: 26,500
St. Louis Cardinals: 26,000

Five of the first six were post season.

Look at the size of the markets.

Thank you , Cranny ! For years now, I don't understand how fans compare stadium attendance of various clubs and not consider the vast difference in metro populations of each. When I brought that up to a buddy a couple years ago, his reply was well NY, LA, and Chicago have TWO teams . My reply to that was .. Well NY has a metro pop. over 20+M , LA has 13-18 M, chicago 9.6-9.9 M while St. Louis has 2.8 M
Even with two MLB teams those 3 markets alone have a range of 10 times to nearly 4 times as many people to draw from to attend games.
It's the same with TV monies generated by teams. LAD get $334M per in their deal with Spectrum while the Cardinals get $50? M maybe from their revised deal in St. Louis after Bally bankruptcy. Some falsely think that a team in St. Louis should be able to go toe to toe financially with the 'big boy' market teams . Under the current system, that is pie in the sky .

Walk me through the Padres’ TV deal and how it compares to the Cardinals’. I’m with you on the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees but there’s no excuse to not do what the Padres do.

The Padres are owned by a private equity group that has access ro almost unlimited funds. They bought Rawlings Sporting Goods not too long ago.

So that therefore means they're deficit spending? You don't know that any more than I do.

What we DO know: according to Spotrac, the Padres earned $432 million in baseball revenue in 2024 (10th), and spent $275 million on payroll in 2025 (6th). That's 63.8% of revenues.

The Cardinals earned $373 million in baseball revenue in 2024 (15th), and spent $160 million on payroll in 2025 (18th). That's 42.9% of revenues.

Now before you go off on debt service and EBITDA and capital calls, look at that from the perspective of the paying customer who's been loyal for decades. They see teams that have no local TV deals at all spending over 20% more of their revenue on investing back into the team. Hell, they see the ATHLETICS spending a higher percentage of revenue on payroll. And your message is, "lower your expectations, the guy wants to make money?" If the Cardinals spent even HALF their revenues on payroll that's an additional $26.5 million in 2025. That's a pitcher. That's a bat that gets them the last few games they need to make the playoffs and share in that revenue.

The system is broken. It needs fixed. Bill DeWitt is cheaping out. Both are indisputable.

Do you have any idea how big the overall Cardinal Organization is? And how incredibly expensive it is to own
a MLB franchise. I really don't think you have any idea.

Neither do you. Say what you want, but there’s no excuse for spending less of your baseball revenue on payroll than the Athletics. None. If it’s too (drat) expensive to own a MLB franchise, why doesn’t he sell?

I think I do more than you. Why don't you take a minute to Google "Cardinal Front Office Directory" and come back to the forum with your thoughts. And while you're at it, look up who pays the compensation of all the minor leagues players at all levels.

Diamond Baseball Holdings, backed by private equity firm Silver Lake, not the St. Louis Cardinals, now owns the Memphis Redbirds and the Springfield Cardinals. And the Peoria Chiefs are owned by an outfit named Peoria Chiefs Baseball LLC.

icon wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 14:00 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Nov 2025 18:08 pm I can't spend time trying to explain something to someone who either can't or won't understand.

You were just told a fact you do not like, so you run away. ALL franchises have expensive FOs and expensive minor league systems. The Cardinals are not unique in that regard. In fact, they are now having to play catchup with other franchises on player development because BDW and Mozeliak cheaped out for years. Quit your insufferable guarding of BDW's wallet.

45s wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:22 am

Cranny wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:21 am

45s wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 09:11 am

AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑05 Nov 2025 06:43 am I don't think there is a chance in hell they will institute a salary cap. The rich teams don't want one and the Union doesn't want one.

What I think IS possible is a harsher luxury tax and more sharing of those revenues with the have nots, more penalty for signing high end free agents in the draft, AND a salary floor to satisfy the Union.

There is a way to approach a more balanced competition but face it, the money isn't generated equally and the owners of teams lucky enough to be in big market areas have no reason to share in their good fortune.

The television networks don’t want a cap either…

and they swing a really big hammer..

Good point. They like teams in the playoffs stacked with stars.

They break into a cold sweat at the mere thought of a Pittsburgh-Minnesota WS