You think that's a shock? Here is a real shocker: Gwen Knapp, writing in the Chron, acutally made sense today. She writes that the Giants need to pay Tim, and then Matt, and later Madison, for the lack of support - sign them to long term contracts fit their standards as pitchers, not how many W's after their names. I agree. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/01/SPJR1KV5R1.DTL.
That is fine, I do not mind paying another 10 to 20 percent for my seats. In today's economy a seat for the season is more than a year of social security.
The Giants sell over 3 million seats per year. That might be thought of as an extra $3 mil for Lincecum and an extra $3 mil for Cain at $2/seat (less than 10%, for sure). Seat sales, however are not what drive baseball revenue. It is television, advertising and corporate boxes. The more the Giants win, the more they can raise rates on things they have some control over (I think TV money is controlled by MLB). Teams do have a budget, and at some point the owners do not want to raise it to pay players - that is why the time is now for the Giants with some young players who are not very expensive. It is also why contracts like Zito's cause so much angst among fans, even though fans don't know what the budget limitations are. Personally, I find complaining about player's contract values to be the most unproductive thing in the world, but at some point dollar values do make a difference. We just hope the Giants make hay while they can.
Post a Comment