The "Billionaire" and his critic

Sports Illustrated writer Jon Heyman recently ripped St. Louis Cardinals owner Bill DeWitt, Jr. No surprise there. The formula is pretty straightforward. Team performs poorly. Columnist rips owner.

But this has tale has another twist. The owner fired back. DeWitt called Heyman after the May 10th article in which the SI writer pointed fingers at the owner for the team's poor start.

As you might imagine, DeWitt and Heyman don't exactly see eye-to-eye.

There's a good reason for that.

People have visceral, emotional reactions to the story of the Cardinals and their payroll.

It doesn't matter how many times you point out how competitive they are, (11th highest payroll in all of baseball, seven of the top eight play in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, only the Cubs spend more in the NL Central), the facts left this debate a long time ago.

Heyman's follow-up piece makes no more sense than his first attack.

Let's first get some facts straight. Four times in this most recent piece and twice more in his first article, Heyman refers DeWitt as a billionaire ("Billionaire, Jr." and "Bill-ionaire" in the May column.)

You can scan the list of the world's billionaires or the most recent Forbes 400 that tallies up the richest Americans, and you won't find DeWitt's name in either place.

I'm sure Bill DeWitt, Jr. is a wealthy man, a multi-millionaire. But there's no evidence to support that he's a billionaire. But even if he were, there's a crucial distinction to be made.

Heyman, like a lot of others, confuses income with wealth. Yes, the Cardinals franchise is worth a lot on paper ($460 million by Forbes calculations) but that value will only be unlocked if/when the Cardinals ownership decides to sell the team.

Ask any farmer about the difference between income and wealth. His land may make him a millionaire but he still gets a loan from the bank every year. This distinction is apparently lost on Heyman.

His analysis of the Cardinals and their revenues is just absurd. He says the Cardinals "rake in the loot." How does he know this? "Everyone in the ballpark wears red."

A simple check of the facts would reveal a different picture. The Cardinals generated $184 million in revenue in 2006, a tie for seventh best in all of baseball.

St. Louis had operating income of $14 million last season. Those figures ranked 21st out of 30 teams. Is that raking in the loot?

Heyman thinks so. He concludes his piece by saying the Cardinals should have upped their payroll to $120 million this season.

That's not even close to realistic. A $120 million payroll would place the Cardinals only behind the Yankees and Red Sox and just ahead of the Mets.

The Yankees generate about $120 million more in revenue than the Cardinals. The Mets, the biggest spenders in the National League, had top line numbers more than $30 million greater than the St. Louis franchise.

Again, what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, yes. Absurd.

In one respect, I hope the "stingy" Cardinals owner lived up to his reputation and called Heyman collect. No use spending franchise money trying to rebut his illogical arguments.

---

Postcript

Fungoes has some thoughts on the Heyman/DeWitt spat here (scroll down).