Tiger Geist

So the trade happened.  Everyone has an opinion on it, and I think bloggers are being really good about “how I feel” vs “value of the trade”.

I didn’t know the players Detroit is receiving very well before the rumors hit;  by all accounts they all are highly regarded prospects with high ceilings.  I’m not nearly as attached to Curtis Granderson as most fans, and frankly I hated his contract (for years 2011/2012).  I liked Edwin Jackson quite a bit and, while Max Scherzer could be better then Jackson, I’m still more comfortable going into 2010 with a rotation of Verlander / Jackson / Porcello.

Detroit didn’t improve their offense, didn’t seem to improve their ‘fielding’ defense, and the starting rotation upgrade quite possibly might not happen until 2011.  The bullpen is probably improved, and probably gives Dave Dombrowski more flexibility in his free agent pursuits.  Again, I’m not super high on Granderson, but if the best Tiger players last year were (no particular order) Cabrera, Verlander, Porcello, Jackson, Rodney, Granderson, Ordonez and Polanco… Detroit just traded two of those players and three might walk via free agency.  Basically, the trade is about potential.  Well.. potential and salary.  Because Detroit just took on some cheap talent and moved an expensive contract and a player they might not have wanted to (or felt unable to) sign to a long term deal.

What’s most interesting is Granderson’s contract.   2010:  $5.5mil;  2011:  $8.25mil;  2012:  $10mil.

Don’t those numbers look familiar?  Maybe the starting point that Justin Verlander is going to command in a long term deal?  Essentially, they can shift the money they planned on spending on Granderson into a long term deal for Verlander.  Based on stadium issues, I don’t know if we’ll see one signed this off-season or not.

That’s my take.  On potential, Detroit could end up doing well here.  And they might have just found their long term money to sign Justin Verlander, which probably should be their top priority in the next 14 months.  However, I don’t know that it allows them to put a better team on the field in 2010 then they had in November.  And I’m well aware of how popular Curtis Granderson is; I’m interested to see who Detroit markets heavily this winter to the fans.  I think it was a deal Detroit needed to make;  granted I’ve been in the US all of 3 hours right now, but I’m pretty confused as to why Arizona made this deal.  Not exactly liking it for New York either.

(NOTE:  Written pre-trade as I was still out of the country when I wrote but didn’t post this)

Billfer is doing an excellent job covering the Winter meetings, as well as covering the mystique in a Tiger firesale this winter.  A few other national writers have chimed in as well, but (granted, reading this from afar.. as in India and Great Britain this month), I’m still confused.

As deepthroat said in “All the President’s Men”… Follow the money.

I get the revenue sharing, the attendance figures, etc.  I get that Detroit is getting a ton of cash from their very lucrative TV deal.  What I don’t understand is this very question:

If a team can make so much money, why would they ever bother to build a new stadium?

The answer is, of course, that stadiums provide an incredible amount of income.  And that is where I’m having a disconnect at the moment.  If the Tigers can’t get sponsorship deals or sell suites, then they’re losing a ton of expected income (based on the reason they built the stadium in the first place).  We simply cannot discount this; this is where the local economy has a direct impact on the team.  Also, the attendance figures don’t necessarily mean anything; what the team needs when they lay out the season expenses is the season ticket numbers (pre-sale) and the suite numbers.  They don’t want to predict the team’s expenses based on what they think the attendance figures might be.  A cold April or a third place team in August can kill any prediction;  what they need is people who pay up front.

Why would Oakland care to get a new stadium if they can get tons of money before selling a seat?  Why would St Louis build a new stadium when they have one of the best fan bases in the country, and averaged about 3million in attendance for the 10 years leading up to their new stadium?  Things are not as dire at the Tigers headquarters, but it is not all roses.  The local economy has a giant affect on the team’s income, and much of that relates to the stadium.  And in essence, most of this additional stadium money is not from fans, its from corporations.

While it doesn’t signal a firesale, the reason behind not significantly cutting payroll can’t simply be discounted as “revenue sharing and local TV money”.  If it was that simple, everyone would still share football and baseball stadiums.  The sponsorship and private suite dollars are huge.  Maybe the team can survive without the stadium income.  But that’s where the ‘free agent’ money comes from.

We’re missing something here.  And of course, its all smoke and mirrors.  NO ONE KNOWS.  That’s the problem with most major sports, but with baseball its the biggest:  No one talks, no one opens their books.  We can’t assume that anything we’re told from the league is true… because, you know, they’ve been pretty truthful about everything in the past.  And the amount of money coming in from stadiums can be staggering;  this is one of the main labor issues in the upcoming NFL CBA — Dallas and Buffalo have different revenue streams in terms of stadium numbers.  These types of revenues are not shared, and almost exclusively never discussed in public.

On the flip side of this, if estimates that Detroit is losing money but its manageable (personally, I think they’re going to lose a ton in 2010), then its quite possible they made a giant windfall leading up to 2008/2009 with the opening of Comerica Park.  So I’m not exactly shedding any tears for the team.