Best owner ever?

And Steinbrenner hired a a gambler to get Winfield. That's a mark of a great owner.

 

Where did I say he was a "great owner"?

 

Where did I write you did?

 

But that's the very heart of the question. No movie fan expects Universal Studios to demonstrate an ambition to win at the box office. And no movie fan expects Sony to reciprocate his love and passion and loyalty.

Sports fans expect exactly that.

 

Yes, but Universal Studios' "performance" relative to other movie studios isn't the entertainment that's being sold. For professional sports entities, that entity-against-entity performance is precisely what's being sold.

 

As a fan, you hope that your team's owner views owning the team like having a hobby that either pays for itself or costs a little money.

If you are an owner who is looking to squeeze ever drop of profit from a team, like not spending an extra $10 mil on a bat so you can make $50 million instead of $40 million, then you are screwing your fans.

 

If 'performance' is the only metric, how do we explain the Chicago Cubs or the Toronto Maple Leafs or any team in Cleveland?

Maybe what pro sports sells is hope.

 

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#p_1_s_a0_

A few things that stand out...

The Yankees have $129 million more in revenue than the next highest team. That's George's legacy.

The Pittsburgh Pirates count $168 million in total revenue. I am guessing that includes all gate and concessions from minor league operations, so if they spend $158 million total on salaries and operating expenses and the owner pocket $10 mil, I am cool with that. If they are profiting $80 million a year, then I have a problem. And as George's son mentioned, he has a real problem paying into revenue sharing if it's going to pockets of other owners without them trying to improve their teams.

 

I had a hockey executive tell me once that he believes sports teams aren't about providing entertainment, but allegiance. He felt people didn't go to games wearing jerseys etc. expecting to be entertained, but expecting the team they have thrown their allegiance behind will win. Not saying I totally agree with that but it could make for good debate.

And, oh yes, all sports teams sell hope. Lots of it. See, Blue Jays, Toronto, 2013.

 

I didn't say that was the only metric. I didn't even say that's a metric. I said that entity-against-entity competition is the product. The Cubs sell a product that is, at its heart, the right to observe an athletic competition. That historically they're not worth a flip has little to do with the fact that, for whatever reason, they're able to find buyers for that product.

 

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just like the Reds or Brewers.

 

Astros or Blue Jays, really.