A few things. Baseball tickets remain dirt cheap compared to every other pro sport, so they've got a ways to go. The Dodgers continue to pull in record attendance #'s, and with Manny that won't stop. Even with this hefty contract, the Dodgers have significantly reduced their payroll this season over last. So if having a name like Manny continues to fill seats in a down economy, he's worth it.

In terms of Manny's more direct financial impact, two other factors haven't been mentioned. Merchandising. We went to the first game that Manny played in for the Dodgers. By the time we arrived at the park, every 4th person had some sort of Manny merchandise. A big $ player, especially one as charismatic as Manny, is a merchandising sales engine. People don't just buy one Manny-cornrows wig and leave it at that. The money just keeps coming in.

The other thing to consider is that Manny was, without argument, the difference between the Dodgers making the playoffs and winning the first round vs. finishing the season out of the playoffs. I don't know what the teams themselves make from that, but I know that the player bonus for making it to the 2nd round and losing was about $120K. With a 40 man roster, that's near $5 million. So I figure the team must receive a decent bonus as well, on top of the added merchandise and other revenue.

All really good points. One of the problems for the NBA is certainly their ticket prices. Last year I took my daughter and 3 of her friends to a Suns game for her B-day. 3 rows from the top of the arena, $65 per ticket. Ouch. I had a former player of mine give me two 3rd row tickets to the Suns-Lakers game last Sunday. Face value was $225 each. Double ouch (except to me they were free).

Condolences.

Well, with about 1/3 the seating capacity at basketball venues vs. most baseball stadiums, you'd expect ticket prices to be higher. The Dodgers' website doesn't have prices listed at the moment since tickets aren't on sale (they've announced they won't raise prices over last season). But from memory, I know the cheapest seats are around $15. Whereas the most expensive (not including luxury suites) are well over $100, I think possibly over $200 or $300. Average price (not including luxury suites) is $29.50 according to one article. Looking at the site for Staples Center, prices range from $10 to $260. Seems about comparable, I didn't realize that. Although I would venture that there's a higher percentage of decent seats at the lower prices at Dodger Stadium than at Staples Center.

ETA: There we go. Average ticket price for a Lakers game is almost $90. So while there are cheaper seats available at Staples vs. Dodger Stadium, there are proportionately fewer of them, and, by nature of the games and the seating, the cheaper seats at Dodgers Stadium probably offer a less degraded viewing experience than the cheaper seats at Staples.

Please. Oh please. Oh please. C'mon Snyder, you know you want to.


Please.

Even God hates the 49ers:

There is a player statistic called Win Share that attempts to estimate how many wins a specific player contributed to the team. There are various flavors to the statistic but by one of them last year Manny Ramirez contributed a total of 11.3 wins to the Red Sox/Dodgers last season.

In about half a season, he contributed 6.3.

If you replace him with an average outfielder you'd expect that average person to have contributed about 2 wins (4 over the season). So, if you assume similar production the Dodgers might be expecting Manny to provide an extra 7 wins or so in a full season (assuming an average replacement was available).

In baseball, even though they play a lot of games, 7 is a HUGE number. Last year, only 2 of the 6 playoff teams would still have made the post-season if you subtracted 7 games from their win column (Angels would still have won division by 14 games and the White Sox might have become a wild card team). Of the 24 teams that did not make the playoffs, 8 would have if everybody else stayed the same and you gave them an extra 7 wins.

Whether that is worth $25 million I can't say but apparently it is to the Dodgers. Keep in mind, though, that while baseball is a for profit business that doesn't mean that the irrational desire to win at the expense of pure profit is completely removed.

It's an field level vs back of house thing. The players coaches and staff generally put winning first while the back of the house, based on my experience with MLB, puts profits first. Of course for the most part winning equals more profits so both sides remain united but when they don't, it's not the folks on the field calling the shots.

That's what's been so great about the McCourt/Colleti era of the Dodgers so far. They seem to be totally in sync on that balance.

Of course, when you've got the best farm system in baseball that's been pumping out a consistent stockpile of top prospects, you get to have that luxury. Who needs to spend money and make risky trades when you've got 3 guys at each position ready to go for, essentially, free?

And the Lord said to the man, why tarriest thou? When thou seest things done in the old ways, when they make gods of men that runneth the ball and smasheth the mouth, and when the down for throwing shall forever be the third and when in that passing time it will rain down blitzes, I say to hee, hie thee hence.