The big challenge with signing young players on cheap long term contracts in football is that in football, unlike in baseball, they will start asking for more money and/or for transfers as soon as they feel that they are underpaid relative to their contributions or to the wages of other players on the team and in their league. The two Mikes touched on this in their podcast. So Chelsea might be forced to spend big to upgrade the contracts of their cheap players (defeating their long term cost control strategy) or sell the players who are actually performing well. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it works out for Boehly.
Lubo's point about the profoundly different attitude of football and baseball players to long term contracts (not to mention that of agents and clubs) is very well taken, as is Grace's assumption that "chemistry" and interpersonal rleations are significantly less important in baseball.
While "clubhouse cancers" (both real and imagined) certainly exist in baseball, their impact on the field just isn't as pronounced because the game is inherently one of individual battles rather than collective action. The 162 game regular season and six day a week schedule also mean that interpersonal conflict tends to be worked out, or at least defused, rather than festering.
Thus the long tradition of successful baseball clubs that hated each other, be they the "Bronx Zoo" or any of those titleholders characterized by the "25 guys, 25 cabs" school of transport to and from the game.
It was also very instructive to learn that Boehly also engaged in "outside the box", "disruptive" thinking with regard to his day job, while apparently ignoring or downplaying rather prominent red flags.
One question that I have is just how long a leash Clear Lake will allow him if their return on investment isn't what they expect. They are likely to be patient when compared to many traditional owners, but that relative patience isn't bottomless.
Thanks Grace. I'll declare an interest here as a Chelsea fan and have mused over little else for the last few months.
On the club side I think write the summer off as a heady mix of neophyte owner trying to fill some obvious squad gaps with a manager who didn't get with the programme. January there is clearly a plan and - perhaps for my sanity - I see more upside. Most of the players are good, Enzo might be fantastic and some were pretty cheap so don't have to do much to appreciate in value. I think it works fine, especially if they extract more from sponsorship AND there's only one season outside the Champions League.
Which leads on to on field stuff. Good to see your impartial view of Potter. It's one I share. Indeed pre WC we were playing relegation standard football. The injection of talent in January means that's not likely to continue for long - but for me there's a lot of 'jam tomorrow' thinking based on not very much. I worry the next N years will be a string of excuses - "wait until he's had a pre-season", "wait until the missing piece in January", "once he's had a second pre-season he'll be flying" - until we realise Boehly has backed the wrong horse. And that really would smack the strategy squarely in the mush.
the baseball comparison is spot on Grace, but what I will add is that the recent trend of spreading big (salary) contracts over years for baseball players is because you are dealing with a salary cap each season in baseball, so spreading paydays over years helps you build a roster while - this is the important part - owners are essentially assured of greater liquidity in the future.
MLB owners all get a fairly equal share of the league revenues, and future real estate + TV deals will mean that the teams will make MORE in 5-10 years and will be able to absorb sunk cost on a past-it player. plus the salary cap moves up periodically. so it kinda makes sense to move some of that money to pay out into a more profitable future.
But Chelsea of course has no guarantee that they will be making significantly more money in 5-10 years unless they are, you know, good, making Champions League, etc. I do wonder if Boehly appreciates what a big gamble this is
The big challenge with signing young players on cheap long term contracts in football is that in football, unlike in baseball, they will start asking for more money and/or for transfers as soon as they feel that they are underpaid relative to their contributions or to the wages of other players on the team and in their league. The two Mikes touched on this in their podcast. So Chelsea might be forced to spend big to upgrade the contracts of their cheap players (defeating their long term cost control strategy) or sell the players who are actually performing well. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it works out for Boehly.
Lubo's point about the profoundly different attitude of football and baseball players to long term contracts (not to mention that of agents and clubs) is very well taken, as is Grace's assumption that "chemistry" and interpersonal rleations are significantly less important in baseball.
While "clubhouse cancers" (both real and imagined) certainly exist in baseball, their impact on the field just isn't as pronounced because the game is inherently one of individual battles rather than collective action. The 162 game regular season and six day a week schedule also mean that interpersonal conflict tends to be worked out, or at least defused, rather than festering.
Thus the long tradition of successful baseball clubs that hated each other, be they the "Bronx Zoo" or any of those titleholders characterized by the "25 guys, 25 cabs" school of transport to and from the game.
It was also very instructive to learn that Boehly also engaged in "outside the box", "disruptive" thinking with regard to his day job, while apparently ignoring or downplaying rather prominent red flags.
One question that I have is just how long a leash Clear Lake will allow him if their return on investment isn't what they expect. They are likely to be patient when compared to many traditional owners, but that relative patience isn't bottomless.
Thanks Grace. I'll declare an interest here as a Chelsea fan and have mused over little else for the last few months.
On the club side I think write the summer off as a heady mix of neophyte owner trying to fill some obvious squad gaps with a manager who didn't get with the programme. January there is clearly a plan and - perhaps for my sanity - I see more upside. Most of the players are good, Enzo might be fantastic and some were pretty cheap so don't have to do much to appreciate in value. I think it works fine, especially if they extract more from sponsorship AND there's only one season outside the Champions League.
Which leads on to on field stuff. Good to see your impartial view of Potter. It's one I share. Indeed pre WC we were playing relegation standard football. The injection of talent in January means that's not likely to continue for long - but for me there's a lot of 'jam tomorrow' thinking based on not very much. I worry the next N years will be a string of excuses - "wait until he's had a pre-season", "wait until the missing piece in January", "once he's had a second pre-season he'll be flying" - until we realise Boehly has backed the wrong horse. And that really would smack the strategy squarely in the mush.
the baseball comparison is spot on Grace, but what I will add is that the recent trend of spreading big (salary) contracts over years for baseball players is because you are dealing with a salary cap each season in baseball, so spreading paydays over years helps you build a roster while - this is the important part - owners are essentially assured of greater liquidity in the future.
MLB owners all get a fairly equal share of the league revenues, and future real estate + TV deals will mean that the teams will make MORE in 5-10 years and will be able to absorb sunk cost on a past-it player. plus the salary cap moves up periodically. so it kinda makes sense to move some of that money to pay out into a more profitable future.
But Chelsea of course has no guarantee that they will be making significantly more money in 5-10 years unless they are, you know, good, making Champions League, etc. I do wonder if Boehly appreciates what a big gamble this is