Forbes MLB Team Valuations

[21C]

I think they have been doing these for the last couple of years but still interesting to see stuff like team revenues - even though MLB disputes the numbers.

More here
hxxp://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball_valuations_land.html
hxxp://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball-team-valuations-cx_mo_0420sports.html

Baseball Team Valuations

Rank	Team	Current Value1 ($mil)	1-Yr Value Change (%)	Debt/Value2 (%)	Revenues ($mil)	Operating Income3 ($mil)
1	New York Yankees	1026	8	12	277	-50.0
2	Boston Red Sox	617	10	39	206	-18.5
3	New York Mets	604	20	42	195	-16.1
4	Los Angeles Dodgers	482	14	87	189	13.4
5	Chicago Cubs	448	12	0	179	7.9
6	Washington Nationals	440	42	27	145	27.9
7	St Louis Cardinals	429	16	47	165	7.9
8	Seattle Mariners	428	3	23	179	7.3
9	Philadelphia Phillies	424	8	42	176	14.8
10	Houston Astros	416	17	13	173	30.2
11	San Francisco Giants	410	8	37	171	11.2
12	Atlanta Braves	405	6	7	172	27.6
13	Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim	368	25	10	167	-2.6
14	Baltimore Orioles	359	5	42	156	21.0
15	San Diego Padres	354	8	56	158	13.0
16	Texas Rangers	353	8	45	153	24.7
17	Cleveland Indians	352	10	28	150	34.6
18	Chicago White Sox	315	20	11	157	21.7
19	Arizona Diamondbacks	305	7	79	145	21.8
20	Colorado Rockies	298	3	30	145	16.3
21	Detroit Tigers	292	22	73	146	3.5
22	Toronto Blue Jays	286	34	0	136	29.7
23	Cincinnati Reds	274	8	15	137	17.9
24	Pittsburgh Pirates	250	15	44	125	21.9
25	Kansas City Royals	239	28	15	117	20.8
26	Milwaukee Brewers	235	13	51	131	22.4
27	Oakland Athletics	234	26	38	134	16.0
28	Florida Marlins	226	10	31	119	-11.9
29	Minnesota Twins	216	21	42	114	7.0
30	Tampa Bay Devil Rays	209	19	17	116	20.3

[Young Drachma]

Someone get those Devil Rays to the NY Metro area, quick!

[Lathum]

I think it's amazing that the value of the Yankees is 500 million more then the next closest team. Just another reason to hate them.

[tanglewood]

As a non MLB follower, all I got out of this was that 'Los Angeles Angels of Anahiem' is most definitley the worst team name I've ever seen in any sport, anywhere in the world. Who came up with that and how much did they get paid?

[Northwood_DK]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

As a non MLB follower, all I got out of this was that 'Los Angeles Angels of Anahiem' is most definitley the worst team name I've ever seen in any sport, anywhere in the world. Who came up with that and how much did they get paid?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/338666.html
What's in a name? A lot if you are owner Arte Moreno. Moreno changed the name of his team to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim last year to broaden his team's fan base and marketing appeal. He fought the city of Anaheim for a year, before the courts in February sided with Moreno's right to change the name. With the a new name in tow and fresh off of two straight playoff appearances, the Angels secured a new 10-year contract with Fox Sports Net that could be worth as much as $500 million. This doubles what the Angels were making under their old TV deals. This puts to rest any plans by the Angels to start their own cable TV network.

[Northwood_DK]

Dola

Talking about baseball and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Has anyone checked out the podcast by Jeff Ellis and Steven Miranda about the Angeles? I don’t follow Baseball but I have to listen to their dally updates cause they are hilarious. They also do a NFL podcast (NFL rants and raves).

[Franklinnoble]

No way the Nationals are the 6th most valuable team in baseball. Last I checked, they have no ownership, no real stadium deal, and are still playing in old and busted RFK Stadium.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

No way the Nationals are the 6th most valuable team in baseball. Last I checked, they have no ownership, no real stadium deal, and are still playing in old and busted RFK Stadium.

Originally Posted by From the article

The biggest winner was the Washington Nationals, whose value rose 42%. In March, Major League Baseball finally agreed to terms with the District of Columbia's local politicians that will have taxpayers foot most of the bill for a new $700 million stadium, which should open by the start of the 2009 season and add $40 million to $50 million to the team's revenue.

I have no idea if the terms of the stadium deal still requires a public vote so your comment about a "real stadium deal" may be appropriate. However if it is true, then the Nationals are going to sold shortly.

Would they have to be a renegotiation of the CBA in order put a minimum payroll requirement in?

[henry296]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I have no idea if the terms of the stadium deal still requires a public vote so your comment about a "real stadium deal" may be appropriate. However if it is true, then the Nationals are going to sold shortly.

Would they have to be a renegotiation of the CBA in order put a minimum payroll requirement in?

Yes the CBA does need to be renegotiated to add a minimum payroll, but it expires after this season anyway.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

No way the Nationals are the 6th most valuable team in baseball. Last I checked, they have no ownership, no real stadium deal, and are still playing in old and busted RFK Stadium.

I think some of that value is coming from the market they're in, which if they can capture some success could be pretty big $$.

[Franklinnoble]

From what I've gleaned just in following the stadium saga for the Nationals, it seems like the deal has been on-again-off-again for over a year.

I suppose I'm just being skeptical, but I was under the impression that the deal wasn't really done... just agreed to in principle. But, whatever. I still think that price is overrated. I suppose the conspiracy theorist in me assumes that MLB had something to do with this, as they're the ones that will be selling the team shortly.