User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6068 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. bob gee Posted: December 05, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2635236)So I think Florida is safe--despite Loria's best efforts--from the unpleasant distinction of lowest franchise attendance in, the at least, the 00s.
Trades like this give ammunition to the large market teams that argue against revenue sharing or the luxury tax.
Not to mention their share of the national TV contracts and merchandising. Anybody got a good link to estimates of the value of these revenue streams? I'm thinking the Marlins might make money even if they never sold a ticket.
Wow.
So what's the projected payroll for 2008? Ten million? Fifteen?
I'd be excited too if I went to a team that cared about winning.
Well, I can't rag on them too heavily, seeing's how they've been pretty good at rebuilding, and specifically, Beinfest seems to have an eye for the talent needed to rebuild.
A profit making business without an actual customer.
If this was another team, I'd be amazed that they were daring to send off their only two players that anyone's heard of. But it's the Marlins, who never draw well anyway, and who seem to always win these trades.
I find it amazing that there's a major-league team whose highest paid player is a guy that I have never heard of. The Cubs paid Neifi Perez this much two years ago. I think the Cubs currently pay backup catcher Henry Blanco about this much.
I understand that teams are going to want to vary their payroll based on where they are in the success cycle or whatever, but I think that MLB would be much better off if teams were required to have a payroll higher than what they get in revenue sharing.
The numbers from 2006 included in the CBA suggest $45M local revenues (net stadium expenses) and $32M more from revenue sharing. Dunno how they'll ever manage to make their payroll without a new taxpayer funded stadium.
I dunno, it's been even worse to be an Orioles or Pirates fan recently imho
No takers.
Not this week alas--I've already gotten one into the system.
Besides, as long as Larry Beinfest is running things the Marlins will be fine.
The funny thing is, folks think I have it in for the Marlins. I like the Marlins, I'm a big fan of Larry Beinfest; I feel bad for Marlins fans for known all too well reasons. Heck, how can I not be sympathetic? It's like watching somebody else experience my worst nightmare.
What kills me is how bad their ownership has been. On the one hand John Henry said he couldn't afford to build a stadium privately yet still managed to cobble together a group that could pay $700 million for the Red Sox.
Now they're stuck with Hi(gh) and Lois(t).
Ah well.
Best Regards
John
Loria has already killed one baseball in one city for his selfish gain. Round 2 anyone?
do think you (rightly!) have it in for loria and samson.
and i was all set for the headline...something like "it's another dwarf tossing contest...no, it's...!"
Is that even legal?
Maybe it's the Cub fan in me, but I'd settle for 2 WS titles every 8 years or so.
Well, call me crazy, but I think we've jumped the shark on this particular defense of the Marlins' practices. And we did it last night. Their model is supposed to be:
1) win a title;
2) immediately tear the team apart;
3) rebuild with the players you acquire to . . .
1) win a title;
2) immediately tear the team apart;
3) rebuild with the players you acquire to . . .
You get the idea. Didn't the Marlins pretty much just skip the important step -- winning a title -- and tear apart the team that was supposed to win something??? Weren't they going to be the Cabrera/Willis/Hanley Fish who won before being torn up to start the process again?
More critically, if they aren't willing to keep a player like Cabrera to build around, and if their payroll has to be so low that they are assured a profit before they sell a ticket, I don't think that old model applies any more. To make that work, they have to be so young, and they have to deal off players so far ahead of free agency -- as salaries rise even a couple of years into arb eligibility -- the team just can't be built towards anything close to competitiveness. To me, the cycle they are now locked into peaks not with actually winning anything, but with a season like they had in 2006, when the Girardi team was praised just for staying moderately decent for 3/4 of the year.
This is a ratcheted down version of the past. And it's gonna be ugly.
I'd love to see something different in Philly upon Gillick's exit, say like Beinfest or Beane, but I know that we will see Amaro. There is nothing about Amaro to love or hate; his public persona so far has been that of the perfect Phillies soldier.
In my opinion, there needs to be a "salary minimum" for teams to have if they want to take part in "revenue sharing".
The problem with the model is that you can have the best team in the league and still not win a title. So the plan is really:
1) make the playoffs;
2) immediately tear the team apart;
3) rebuild with the players you acquire to . . .
1) make the playoffs;
2) immediately tear the team apart;
3) rebuild with the players you acquire to . . .
The Marlins just got lucky to win the title the first two times they tried it. And since the model requires rebuilding immediately, you will have many cycles where you don't even accomplish #1 (injuries, talent doesn't pan out, there's a great Mets team in your year, etc.), and you still have to proceed to #2.
Fine -- I'm simply saying I don't think what the Marlins are doing NOW is really the same thing they were doing then. It's similar in form, but it is on a different budgetary scale and against competitors spending differently against them. If they are going to be this cheap, there is just no way they can ever build even a decently competitive team to approach the winning part of the cycle (even to make the playoffs and have a shot at a title, much less win it). Instead, they're going to live (for a while) off the credibility they built by having had success with trades that seemed to be like this -- but really envisioned a very different top of the cycle.
That said, I hate the way the Marlins operate.
It's true - at least before they signed good free agents - Ivan Rodriguez, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield (I think), Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla - those guys were good for the Marlins. Now, not only do they not sign decent free agents, they trade away good arb-eligible players who aren't even that close to free agency. What they're doing now is certainly different than what they did to win championships before.
True, but how many fans wouldn't want Beinfest as the GM of their team?
The 1997 teams was built on some expensive free agents, and defintely not on a group of young players built from a previous rebuilding cycle. It was a one time thing, and they immediately dismantled. If the Marlins are to win again, I don't think 1997 will be the model for how they try to do it.
2003 is the hope. In that case, the team was built largely on young players who developed at about the same time. A few things about the 2003 team:
There was one or two free agents (IRod), but not a lot.
The payroll was very small
The team did a good job filling in between young stars with players that didn't kill the team - there weren't many holes on that team.
The team was still only about league average offensively, a little above league average on defense and pitching (largely because of the young players), and snuck into the playoffs.
So can the future Marlins repeat the performane from 2003, winning with a small payroll a few years into the future? Its possible, but they'll have to be both smart and lucky for it to happen again.
> in "revenue sharing".
Agreed, the union should push for a raise in the minimum salary commensurate to the amount of $$ each team receives in revenue sharing. I think a $1M minimum salary would be fair. That's a floor of $750M in salaries and the Marlins couldn't get their payroll below $25M.
I support revenue sharing (and would even if the Cubs couldn't hide large amounts of income) but this is beyond ridiculous. I don't even think the entire cost of running the Marlins approaches $70 million given a $10 million payroll. I'd rather see no revenue sharing than this blatant robbery.
The "Angel of Death" is sharpening his scythe...
Old school Joe G knows when it's time to hit-and-run, and when it's time to hit a home run.
If the Marlins have a $10mm payroll next year, they'll probably clear $50mm in profit easily (from their cut of league revenue sharing, away gate, MLBAM revenue, RSN revenue, national TV contract revenue).
The Yankees will have 10 players (A-Rod, Jeter, Mussina, Giambi, Posada, Rivera, Pettite, Matsui, Damon, and Abreu) under contract next year making more money than the entire Marlins paroll. That is absurd. In fact, I think nearly every other team in MLB will have at least one player making more money than their entire payroll.
The numbers from 2006 included in the CBA suggest $45M local revenues (net stadium expenses) and $32M more from revenue sharing. Dunno how they'll ever manage to make their payroll without a new taxpayer funded stadium.
If those #'s are correct then the Marlins are an absolute goldmine. With a payroll of $10M, I can't imagine the total operating cost for the team is over $25-30M.
If you have $90M guaranteed revenue, that's a minimum of $60M in profite BEFORE you sell a ticket or a hot dog or local TV and radio. Even if you only sell 1M tickets at $10 each, make another $5 per fan in concessions and parking, and $5M for local media, that's $80M in profits.
That would make the Marlins worth $800M-$1B conservatively. Wow!
Their highest paid player will make about half a million dollars less than the average player.
In all the discussion about Alex Rodriguez's new contract and how much of a raise it really was, didn't we learn that player salaries are now something like 41% of revenue, a far lower number than in all the other major sports?
The only way to stop this is to cut off their national and revenue sharing $.
In the NFL TB used to do this. They realized with revenue centralized they could spend nothing on their team and rake in bucks, regardless if anyone showed up for games. That's why there is a high salary floor in the NFL salary cap.
Kinda sounds like Marvin Miller's running the Marlins. Or maybe his evil twin.
I don't even think you need to make it a hard floor. Just say that the most that a team can get in revenue sharing (I'd do this just with the pure redistribution, but you could do it with shared revenues too if you really wanted to) is X% of their player payroll. I don't know enough to be able to say definitively what X should be, but something like 50% seems reasonable - you can't get revenue sharing if you're not going to spend it on the team.
A profit making business without an actual customer.
Also keep in mind they get a percentage of gate receipts for away games. Even more profit, without needing a single customer of their own. Of course, for this reason they probably can't get away with not even opening the stadium, because the other teams want their visitors' cut of the 18 paying fans.
#### that "Evil Empires" ########. The Red Sox are likely to be fourth in the AL in payroll next year once the Angels are done spending. They run an excessive payroll for ONE year and suddenly everybody thinks they are the Yankees? That demonstrates ZERO historical perspective.
And if investing in your team is "evil", I think the state of Florida could use a little more evil to spread around. Seems to me that somebody has it backwards.
Not positive, but I believe this practice was replaced when revenue sharing was instituted several years back. Can anybody confirm?
Holy cow this is funny.
Its funny. I'm a Red Sox fan, and even I was thinking that if the Red Sox get Santana and sign him long term, I may be rooting for the new evil empire.
<--- stepping down from soapbox
Touchy, touchy.
In '06, they outspent every team not named the Yankees by $17M.
In '05, it was $22M.
In '04, it was $27M.
They also paid $51M just to negotiate with Matsusaka.
I think my historical perspective scores something greater than zero.
So you're hoping the Sox don't acquire the best pitcher in baseball, solely so it isn't obvious to the last couple of people who don't see how they run their team? For the past 4 years, they've outspent the 3rd highest payroll team by 15-25%.
I had heard this statement in relation to the AZ Cardinals as well. To further pare expenses, they stayed in an aging college stadium for many years beyond when they reasonably could have demanded a new stadium, and they cut coaching/scouting/equipment expenses to the bone. Life in Bidwill-land.
You know the one thing that would stop this dead in its tracks, right? Relegation...
<--- stepping down from soapbox
Oh no you din't!
Fair enough. Then call it four years of historical perspective. Still a good chance that they'll fall back to fourth in 2008, which will put an end to that run. Only the Santana deal is likely to derail that, and given the lowball offers the Red Sox have been putting forth it is pretty clear that they don't WANT to win the bidding.
They also paid $51M just to negotiate with Matsusaka.
Not entirely accurate, since that $51M was only paid if a deal was concluded. The Red Sox spent $103M on Matsuzaka -- they don't really care who ends up with the money. The Angels just spent $90M on Torii Hunter. Why is that deal not viewed in the same light? Or the $126M deal for Zito? Or Soriano's mega-millions?
It's pretty clear that nobody will give the Red Sox any respect as long as they have the #2 payroll in baseball. Why shouldn't I desire change?
Hank:George
Where did that come from? I thought there was a consensus that the Red Sox were the best team in 2007, and are going to be the team to beat in 2008.
I think this was what Bill Wirtz was eventually going for. It was only the icy hand of death that laid his grandest plans to waste.
Maybe hearing more about how the Red Sox are a damned good team instead of always focusing on their payroll? Throughout the playoffs this year we were peppered with headlines to the effect of, "The Payroll beat the Indians/Rockies".
Besides, I enjoy following the prospects. Even if they aren't ever going to be stars, it is fun to watch guys whose debut you've been anticipating for years.
Finally, unless Santana is willing to accept a deal that is well below "fair market" value, I think they have better ways to spend that money. Sooner or later a premier free agent will hit the market -- makes more sense to spend $30M/year on that player than to spend $25M/year on somebody you've just traded a bushel of cheap talent to acquire.
Really?
The Sox currently have 15 players under contract for '08, for a total of $128.5M (including 1/6 of the posting fee, per your statement "Not entirely accurate, since that $51M was only paid if a deal was concluded. The Red Sox spent $103M on Matsuzaka -- they don't really care who ends up with the money."). The Angels are currently at 11 players for $93.5, so they're $35M behind right now.
Even if the remaining 10 roster spots go for the league minimum, they'll outspend the Tigers next year. They'll still be the #2 team in payroll next year.
In the 6 seasons under the current owners, only once have they not been 2nd in payroll (even with Tom Hicks' crazy contracts and the DBacks' near-bankrupting deals, the Sox outspent both in '02).
I expect both Tavarez and Crisp to be traded this winter, reducing the payroll by about $8M, so there is possibly room for them to come in under $130M... After that it depends on how they choose to spend the money currently allocated to Ramirez, Schilling, and Varitek.
Cash is always nice.
Wirtz had it the other way around. He only cared about bringing people into his arena. He didn't seem to care about extra TV revenue or the long-term effects on the fan base from showing home games on TV.
Cash is always nice.
It's just as good as money.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it is.
Better yet, with the fans out of the equation, play all the games during the day and save on the lighting bill. Also hire a kid to go around and collect all the foul balls and HRs -- some rec league somewhere will buy them off you. You also save royalty payments on all the in-stadium music and don't need anybody to run your scoreboard. You get to fire Billy the Marlin -- he's probably be #3 on the payroll at the moment.
Not exactly. A sizeable chunk of the 2003 team were FA, not traded away. Penny and Lee were traded for what amounted to nothing. Beckett and Lowell from that team eventually produced Ramirez (and Sanchez who hasn't paid off yet). While clearly not the loser in the Pierre trade, none of those guys look like "the talent needed to rebuild." The Castillo trade hasn't paid dividends yet that I know of. That's a lot of talent out the door and only Ramirez in return.
(They also swapped Delgado for Jacobs ... and Petit who hasn't done anything yet ... but he wasn't part of the 2003 team. Hmmm... was the Mantei trade Beinfest or Dombrowski?)
The point is Beinfest has traded away lots of good players while receiving mostly players who amounted to very little in return. This probably won't be one of those trades but it's far from an unimpeachable track record and, the nature of all prospect trades, we shouldn't be surprised if one or fewer of these guys actually pay off substantially. In terms of pure production, I'd be stunned if the Marlins win this trade.
Note, I'd happily take Beinfest as GM on my team. It's not a criticism of his performance, it's a criticism of the perception of his performance ... and the same holds for the perception of the Dombrowski fire sale. The first Marlins winner was built mostly of high-priced vets. The second Marlins winner was some high-priced vets, good drafting and luck with role players (look at that OF!) -- with the Mantei (post-fire-sale), Brown and Leiter trades paying off nicely but the rest returning very little.
Based on the Marlins' history, at least one of the guys they got from the Tigers will star as they win the World Series in 2009 or so.
By my account, at least 11 players of, shall we say, substantial rep from the 97 Marlins were traded away and they returned 4 players who played substantial roles on the 03 team. From the 03 team, before this trade, they had dealt 6 key players (Lee, Castillo, Lowell, Pierre, Penny, Beckett) and had received Hanley Ramirez as the only player of substantial worth so far.
Is Anibal completely kaput?
If Anibal's career is done, and that is not at all certain, then the Marlins have only themselves to blame. They jumped him from 136 IP at the age of 21 to 200 IP at the age of 22.
The expensive tickets keep attendance down (while providing some revenue) so the team can claim they need a new stadium to draw fans to the games.
They probably could make the tickets free and cover expenses on concessions alone. And the visiting team will usually be major league caliber.
Well, I said "substantial worth so far." And I probably should have said "production" rather than "worth." And I forgot (or never knew!) how good Sanchez's 2006 was. But still, the "so far" was meant to cover my butt if one of these guys breaks out. I'm clever that way. :-)
Well, to be fair - they tried for years to get a new stadium, and kept getting shot down. It wasn't until the stadium referendum was combined with a proposal to provide funding to expand the cactus league and money to build more desperately needed parks that the stadium bill was passed by voters.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main