Ryan Howard is worth about 2M a year. He got paid $25,000,000 last year. They owe him 60M over the next 2 years.

LOL @ PHILS

ON GROUND LOLING AT PHILS

Agreed. I think best case scenario that is somewhat realistic is

Melky
Tori
Santana

That's pretty hopeful though. What would it take to get those 3? 35 Million this year maybe? So Glass would have to push it up to 115Million?

Ok, maybe not so realistic.

True, but it's our bar, so let's look at clearing that before going for the Olympic record...

I would rather have given Butler his option than trade for Ryan Howard, even if he was almost free. Jesus, I hope the rumor that some people in our front office were seriously talking about him is wrong.

Ditto, I did not even bother to look at how many home runs he hit, because whether your hitting value comes from getting on base, driving guys in, hitting it over the wall, or some combination of the three, it all shows up in the OPS somehow. Sometimes its valuable to see where the offensive value is coming from like when you are seeing if someone's numbers translate to our ballpark, but all I mostly care about is OPS and defensive value. Ryan Howard has no defensive value, and his OPS sucked last year for a non-premier position player. It wasn't a one-year fluke either, because he's getting old so he's probably on the decline.

If he was on the freaking waiver wire (edit: with no financial consequences for taking him), I might pick him up for depth, but I'm not giving him a starting job.

I honestly don't know why they don't look at riding the post season success with a bump in the payroll and generating further interest in the fan base for the upcoming season. I'd bet dollars to donuts a healthy portion of it would be recouped in additional attendance and season ticket sales.


I'm not advocating for aimless spending, but if they have a list of targeted FAs, maybe it's worth a few more $$$ to acquire number 1 or 2 on their list instead of trying to hoof it with somebody down the list.

Again, it's a crapshoot in being able to eye x or y guy's value in comparison to the next available guy in relation to the drop off in proportion to dollar value.

I realize this isn't some illuminating idea, but for the fact that it seems like the Royals always make their list of FAs by rank and immediately skip over even inquiring about the guys at the top.

Somewhat different but along the same lines of a number of people who brought up keeping our triple threat in the bullpen. A lot of posts alluded to who would we get rid of this off-season. But, what was a major factor in their post season success?

Now why would you want to break that up and lose that competitive advantage? Many would say a small market team can't afford the luxury of devoting that much payroll to your bullpen. However, if it means you're going to be more competitive, then who says you have to follow the traditional allocation of resources within your payroll?

Sorry to ramble, but point being is I don't buy this idea that they have to scrape by on every player they look at in FA. A jump in payroll can be offset by increasing attendance and all the revenue streams that are generated by fielding a team in the title chase.

Does anyone really think that the Royals didn't make hand over fist thanks to the post season success?

I'm not talking about throwing money around with impunity like the Yankees tossing cash into the wind, but if there's a player out there whose the guy, who would be the perfect addition, then cut the defeatist attitude of throwing in the towel and waving the white flag right off the bat.

Much like their comments about being able to resign Shields. I'm not saying I think resigning him is a must or that I necessarily believe he's that player you open the checkbook for, but you don't have to come out and broadcast his future is a forgone conclusion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The Braves&#39; asking prices for Gattis and other young players is said by rival officials to be extremely high.</p>&mdash; Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/532257896961437696">November 11, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

From Royals standpoint, probably means Ventura or Duffy.

"Making money hand over fist" is one of those sorts of vague expressions that lets the reader believe what they want to believe, and react accordingly, but we really don't have to go there.

We think they made about an extra $10-15MM on the postseason. They will probably sell about 300,000 extra tickets next season. This stuff can be quantified.

None of that leads to a top 1/3 in baseball payroll, at least until our terrible TV deal expires or is redone.

Which in turns means "**** no"

If you want a dream a little, then in 2020 IF the Royals are still making the playoffs every other year, IF we're selling at least 2.2MM tickets, and IF the ratings are still great, and IF sports TV contracts are not a bubble that has busted by then, then the team could be put into a great financial position to spend a lot more money.

Our biggest problem is the local TV contract.

Adding $35 million in payroll without a corresponding move probably pushes it into the $120 million range, if arb cases go as expected.

Would love for them to do it, but not going to lynch if they can't.

Pushing it to around $100 million should allow KC to make a few solid moves to help the rotation and the lineup.

If you sign Cabrera, I'm not so sure KC needs Hunter any longer. At that point, I'd probably be looking for the best bat I could find that hits LH pitching at a decent level. Not sure spending $10+ million on Hunter is necessary at that point.

And none of that guarantees a revenue increase from those sources in future years. If we sign anyone of significance, they're generally looking for 4 years of guarantees. It's a challenge to match revenue over an extended period of time (due to the variability of the various revenue streams) to the costs that are fixed based on contract length.

There will probably be residual benefit to the top line related to merchandise, ticket sales and the associated concession sales, but beyond 2015 there's no way to predict continued success/revenue growth. With that in mind, Glass will continue to remain somewhat conservative most likely.

What we can't fix, and what is holding the payroll back is the local TV deal with Fox Sports Midwest. $20M/year through 2019 is a nightmare. And it will continue to get worse as other teams sign new and more lucrative contracts with their local provider. The Dodgers get $250M for context.

A ~$90-100M payroll isn't unreasonable, with perhaps a slight bump to account for recent and future success.

I wonder if that deal can be extended now as sort of a good faith move by the network.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Jon Heyman said the Reds and Royals are interested in Aoki. But royals prefer Hunter over him