Jim Breen:

Tom Haudricourt also tweeted:

Brewers GM Doug Melvin has said he won't address an extension for Prince Fielder until he fills current needs. Probably Jan. at earliest.

I would think that knowing whether there was an opportunity to commit to Fielder long term would affect the way in which he went about those plans.  Specifically, whether or not he's got the juice to commit to a multi-year deal on a top pitcher like Lackey.

brewhawk:

Jim Breen:

Tom Haudricourt also tweeted:

Brewers GM Doug Melvin has said he won't address an extension for Prince Fielder until he fills current needs. Probably Jan. at earliest.

I would think that knowing whether there was an opportunity to commit to Fielder long term would affect the way in which he went about those plans.  Specifically, whether or not he's got the juice to commit to a multi-year deal on a top pitcher like Lackey.

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

badger80:

 

SI_JonHeyman:

#brewers plan to try to lock up prince fielder this winter. dont put it past milwaukee (1 of 9 teams to draw 3 mil fans)

This is just stupid.

Let's break down his sentence.

"The Brewers plan to try"....Um, ok. So they're going to try. In fact, they're planning on trying. Try is a long, long, long way from accomplishing it.

"Don't put it past Milwaukee (1 of 9 teams to draw 3 mil fans)"....What does the attendance have to do with anything? I mean, it's a great accomplishment for a market this size, but say, for example that the Giants drew 2.5 million. The Brewers drew more, but the Giants charge higher ticket prices so the revenue is fairly equal. And you throw in all the other crap, television revenue, etc. the Brewers probably make less than a lot of teams in the majors.

radio silence:

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

SeattlePilot:

radio silence:

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

No, Bud and Wendy were the liars. They had the stadium built for them, then cut payroll to the $29 million level.

In case you haven't noticed, the Brewers HAVE been competitive under Attanasio's regime.

If you sign Fielder to a $20-25/million per year contract, don't plan on them getting any other legit major league players for the life of the deal. It'll be Prince and Braun and rotating rookies and low-paid veterans.

radio silence:

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

I don't think that is entirely true if you consider that there probably wouldn;t be baseball in Milwaukee without it (a point that is admittedly debaable). 

It is extremely difficult to quantify what value that stadium has if it means keeping professional baseball in the State.  For example, I believe the State income tax in Wisconsin is somewhere around 9% (I remember it being very close to Iowa).  That means the State income tax on player payroll alone is about $7M. 

Then think about the amount of sales tax involved on 3M attendance, times $20 per average ticket, or $60M taxable, not including concessions, merchandise, parking, etc.  Not sure about Milwaukee County sales tax percentage, so I would quantify exactly.  Then you haven;t had one single hotel room sold (hotel +sales tax), stadium employee paid, restaurant visits, gasoline purchased, cable and satellite television, etc.  Less quantifiable are the effects that being a major league city has on recruiting and retaining good companies to the area.

The one thing where the stadium board in Milwaukee really screwed up is that they did not do enough to develop the area around the stadium, to create an increase tax base and make the best use of the draw that the stadium brings.  There should at the very least be a hotel and restaurants a lot closer to the ballpark.  I think you'd get more hotel tax and more sales tax if people didn't have to get in their cars after the game to take advantage of that.

There is no question that Bud fought for it because it was in Bud's best interest to sell a team with a new stadium.  He clearly was playing that game.  But you'd have a tough time convincing me that is also isn't a good investment for the City and State to have contributed to.

SeattlePilot:

radio silence:

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

Pretty much.

The stadium construction boom was one of the best swindles by MLB owners ever.

Don't worry, though, they're pocketing the $$$$ from higher ticket prices due to a scarcity of seats and more luxury seating options.

brewhawk:

radio silence:

belding:

This song and dance about building a new stadium (fully tax payer funded) to stay competitive but they still let the stars go. 

 

You know that most of those stadiums don't even return on their investments, right?

When you count what taxpayers give up in terms of free land, reduced property taxes, etc., they come out to be really bad investments.

I don't think that is entirely true if you consider that there probably wouldn;t be baseball in Milwaukee without it (a point that is admittedly debaable). 

It is extremely difficult to quantify what value that stadium has if it means keeping professional baseball in the State.  For example, I believe the State income tax in Wisconsin is somewhere around 9% (I remember it being very close to Iowa).  That means the State income tax on player payroll alone is about $7M. 

Then think about the amount of sales tax involved on 3M attendance, times $20 per average ticket, or $60M taxable, not including concessions, merchandise, parking, etc.  Not sure about Milwaukee County sales tax percentage, so I would quantify exactly.  Then you haven;t had one single hotel room sold (hotel +sales tax), stadium employee paid, restaurant visits, gasoline purchased, cable and satellite television, etc.  Less quantifiable are the effects that being a major league city has on recruiting and retaining good companies to the area.

The one thing where the stadium board in Milwaukee really screwed up is that they did not do enough to develop the area around the stadium, to create an increase tax base and make the best use of the draw that the stadium brings.  There should at the very least be a hotel and restaurants a lot closer to the ballpark.  I think you'd get more hotel tax and more sales tax if people didn't have to get in their cars after the game to take advantage of that.

There is no question that Bud fought for it because it was in Bud's best interest to sell a team with a new stadium.  He clearly was playing that game.  But you'd have a tough time convincing me that is also isn't a good investment for the City and State to have contributed to.

This topic was provided the best and most thought provoking chapter in Baseball between the numbers. You need to read that book for that chapter, if nothing else.

One of the most interesting points they make, drawn from professional economists who study this exact phenomenon, is that entertainment spending does not fluctuate as greatly as one might think between baseball and no-baseball environments (this was studied during the 1994 strike, for instance).

The money generated from sales tax would be made up in other areas. If Joe Milwaukee is not spending $150 a year on Brewers tickets and another $100 on food at the stadium, he'll spend that money at the movie theatre, at local concerts, or at another sporting event. 

Also, don't forget the unquantifiable, often under-publicized costs stadiums pull from their general populations -- tax breaks, free land, etc. One of the more interesting examples of this is the New York stadiums that were just opened, especially Yankees stadium, which was built on land that was under-assessed by the team, city, and state at a rate approximately 10x lower than the market value for the land. 

Those types of benefits to teams are not often publicized while funding talks occur, but you'd better believe that taxpayers pay through the nose for those types of benefits which are simply allowed to slip through the cracks.

Also, in a market-driven sport such as baseball, where would the Brewers move that would be advantageous? Las Vegas? Portland? Charlotte? Jacksonville? New Orleans? I mean this seriously: what markets are available that provide unquestionable benefits over a city such as Milwaukee?

radio silence:

One of the most interesting points they make, drawn from professional economists who study this exact phenomenon, is that entertainment spending does not fluctuate as greatly as one might think between baseball and no-baseball environments (this was studied during the 1994 strike, for instance).

The money generated from sales tax would be made up in other areas. If Joe Milwaukee is not spending $150 a year on Brewers tickets and another $100 on food at the stadium, he'll spend that money at the movie theatre, at local concerts, or at another sporting event. 

The greatest benefit, and one that you do not mention (and I don;t know whether these other economists do) is money that comes into the area from outside the area.  For example, where the greatest benefits are derived are from people like me, bringing my Iowa money into Milwaukee.  Also, the TV contracts that allow the players to be paid exorbitant sums create taxable income at the highest levels.

I have a pretty strong background in demand analysis.  That all boils down to employment.  What localities of any level (municipal, county, state, etc.) should strive to create is what is called "basic employment"  It helps to understand that the term "basic" in this case means "of the base" and not "simple".  What it means is that you compare the percentage of employment in a more localized area to the average level of employment of a broader area, usually nationally, by Standard Industrial Code (SIC) and/or North American Standard Industry Classification System (NASICS)If the ratio is over 1, then dollars flow into that area from around the country, and an economic benefit is created, because those dolars circulate throughout the economy and become taxed multiple times.  If the ratio is below 1, then more dollars leave the community than are spent there.

This is a very significant concept in real estate because it has several applications.  It can be used to estimate demand for just about everything from housing to retail sales to changes in tax base, etc.

To simply say that entertainment money would be spent elsewhere locally is missing a lot of the picture.  I agree that people will continue to spend their entertainment dollars, but where and how they spend it makes a tremendous difference. 

For example, the revenue spent at the movies doesn't necessarily create jobs, if it means greater utilization of existing capacity and not an abundance of new theatres.  also, a significant portion of those dollars goes immediately out of the area to be taxed and spent elsewhere (California) so the overall effect on the local economy between $60M being spent at a ballpark and $60M being spent at the movie theatres has a very different effect on the local economy.

Like I said, there are a lot of residual effects that are very difficult to quantify, but your take on it is overly simple, and I believe not accurate.

radio silence:

Also, in a market-driven sport such as baseball, where would the Brewers move that would be advantageous? Las Vegas? Portland? Charlotte? Jacksonville? New Orleans? I mean this seriously: what markets are available that provide unquestionable benefits over a city such as Milwaukee?

They'll go the largest TV market where someone will build them a new stadium.

SeattlePilot:

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

I can't imagine how it took you this long.

Einsteinhood:

SeattlePilot:

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

Welcome to the party.

I can't imagine how it took you this long.

I'd say we've been relatively competitive the last few seasons.

Not that "competitive" is the standard the team should aspire to. 

Under Attanasio, I think ownership has been a lot bigger part of the solution than the problem.  It's management that worries me a little.  I think Melvin has been given some pretty good resources, and not done enough with them.

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

SeattlePilot:

So why did we build a stadium at tax payers expense if the Brewers still can't put a team together that can be competitive year after year?   If the stadium loses money and the Brewers can't make enough money to buy good players, looks to me like the tax payers got ripped off.   So what you're saying is everyone who sold us this bill of goods are liars. 

Welcome to the party.

I can't imagine how it took you this long.

I'd say we've been relatively competitive the last few seasons.

Not that "competitive" is the standard the team should aspire to. 

Under Attanasio, I think ownership has been a lot bigger part of the solution than the problem.  It's management that worries me a little.  I think Melvin has been given some pretty good resources, and not done enough with them.

Now when we were sold this stadium, we were told it would help us compete for free agents in the market. Now, that is partially true, of course. It has helped that. But what a lot of people took that to mean (and there were a lot in this boat) that it would put the Brewers one equal or nearly equal footing with the big boys. That was at least partly self delusion, but it was encouraged.

In general, tax payers are sold a bill of goods when they build these stadiums for the billionaires. I've read a lot of the same stuff Radio has on this, and the economic reports generally cast doubt on how valauble these stadiums really are for areas, purely in dollars.

brewerfanx1:

TheDude:

I know it's hard to think like this (that the Brewers can't afford Prince), but it's true and they shouldn't be going after players that cost this much,

 

WRONG!

I disagree 100%, because they can afford to do it, but do they want too?  We will see here this offseason.  It's a matter of opinion Dude.  There is risk, devoting 25% of the payroll to one player no doubt.

 The Brewers can afford Fielder, but they can't afford Fielder and remain competitive.