O's have exceeded 2011 budget

[wildcard]

First I have seen this.


They also have pretty much exceeded their 2011 budget, according to team officials, and any money they have remaining will go toward a starting pitcher.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/2011/01/with_report_date_looming_for_o.html

[ChaosLex]

Disappointing, if true.

Hopefully, we'd make an exception for someone like Guerrero, if he's a bargain.

[tennOsfan]

If we got him at a bargain rate, you'd have to think Vlad would sell at least a few tickets. Thus maybe he'd be a wash.

[DuffMan]

This should be good...

[Bradysburns]

First I have seen this.



http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/2011/01/with_report_date_looming_for_o.html

So we sign a bargain hitter in Lee, and a good middle reliever in Gregg, and bam... we're over our budget. I know Reynolds and Hardy have contracts too, but this strikes me as ridiculous.

[Napoleon Solo]

I think calling this ridiculous is an overreaction. Budgets can be exceeded.

[ChaosLex]

I think calling this ridiculous is an overreaction. Budgets can be exceeded.

Especially when we were willing to go to $40 million+ for VMart, Dunn, etc.

I guess AM thinks we forgot about that. ;)

[JimDH]

"pretty much" How do you pretty much exceed a budget? Is like getting pretty much pregnant? My kids say "pretty much"

[crowmst3k!]

I think the O's will spend more if the games are better attended. Unfortunately, the team needs to get better for this attendance to get better, so you're caught in a catch-22 of sorts.

[Camden_yardbird]

Kind of kills the off-season for me. The Orioles don't look like they want to spend like a competitor. What happens if they need to add salary to compete mid year?

If this is really true than Luke Scott should be traded for a pitcher. The Orioles have plenty of SG options, and they really need another pitcher.

[weams]

I am not sure I believe this. I think it was simply a quote to get the reporters off the Vlad scent. Vlad only comes here if he is cheap and a media frenzy is not a way to get a guy inexpensively.

[Brendan25]

This actually makes me happy since Duscherer is at the top of my wish list right now.

[Moose Milligan]

This means we HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO BEING A WINNING TEAM!!!! The only way to win is to spend gobs of money!!!!!

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

I can't imagine this is completely true. If it is, we're going to be in a world of trouble in a couple years when we try to extend some of this young talent...

[Sports Guy]

I can't imagine this is completely true. If it is, we're going to be in a world of trouble in a couple years when we try to extend some of this young talent...

This year's budget has nothing to do with the budget in 2012 and beyond.

[ShaneDawg85]

Before making a comment either way I'd like to know what the actual budget is, or a close estimate.

[Bradysburns]

This means we HAVE TO BE CLOSE TO BEING A WINNING TEAM!!!! The only way to win is to spend gobs of money!!!!!

Ah, the old straw-man argument of "spend like idiots or we can't win"...

[Hank Scorpio]

Waiting for the "if this is true, we are truly doomed" post...

[TrappedinWV]

If this is true, we are truly doomed.

[Bradysburns]

Especially when we were willing to go to $40 million+ for VMart, Dunn, etc.

I guess AM thinks we forgot about that. ;)

Exactly. I dunno. I don't want to get too bent out of shape before getting more details, if there are any. But it's just irritating that right when you think we could start making a little push toward at least "not sucking"... you get this little pin moved a little closer to the balloon.

[DrungoHazewood]

If we got him at a bargain rate, you'd have to think Vlad would sell at least a few tickets. Thus maybe he'd be a wash.

Maybe. But I have a strong feeling that Vlad's impact on attendance would be very far down in the noise. If the O's win 85 games and attendance goes up half a million you might have a case, even if it's impossible to pin any of it on Vlad.

My opinion here is that almost no individual is going to drive ticket sales by a measurable amount apart from his impact on meaningful wins.

[LookinUp]

Does this mean we get to draft a roommate for Matt Hobgood in June?

[TakebackOPACY]

Kind of kills the off-season for me. The Orioles don't look like they want to spend like a competitor. What happens if they need to add salary to compete mid year?

If this is really true than Luke Scott should be traded for a pitcher. The Orioles have plenty of SG options, and they really need another pitcher.

Shooting guard??

[wildcard]

Before making a comment either way I'd like to know what the actual budget is, or a close estimate.

Has to be somewhere between 78-80M.

[osgolfer]

Shooting guard??

Stop gap I believe.

[srock]

Meh.

$75-80 million seems like a very reasonable budget for the 2011 Orioles.

So long as the budget is flexible should certian situations present themselves ;)

[J.D.]

No big deal. Budgets have some inherent flexibility in them. As long as I don't hear "our budget prevented us from signing/drafting X that would have helped our team" then I honestly couldn't care less about this.

[DrungoHazewood]

So long as the budget is flexible should certian situations present themselves ;)

You would hope that some kind of situation that would push the O's towards serious contention would lead to more money being pried loose. They're not that far from the win range where 5 wins might bust loose $10s of millions in playoff revenues.

[crissfan172]

Does this mean we get to draft a roommate for Matt Hobgood in June?

I'm pretty sure the money they have allotted for the team and draft are separate.

[crissfan172]

Normally this wouldn't bug me because you don't want to spend too much money that it prevents you from spending in the future. However, I don't see how signing Vlad to a one-year contract would hamstring us, so I don't understand the comment at all.

[Crazysilver03]

Even though most reports say the Orioles were in the $73M range in 2010, I believe we were closer to $62M when it was all said and done.

We are currently around $76M, so if we are over-budget that means we are at approximately $75M, which is fairly disappointing if true.

This would explain the nickle and diming of Uehara, but makes the Gregg move even more disappointing. It also calls into question the Accardo signing at over $1M.

And while this may not have an effect on future payrolls, I would think it would give a little glimpse.

I would hope this doesn't need to Scott being the one dealt because of monetary issues, but if he is traded, I could see him coupled with Harris.

[crissfan172]

Another thing to note...I would imagine that the closer we get to competing, the more money they would spend on payroll as opposed to the draft.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

This year's budget has nothing to do with the budget in 2012 and beyond.

Nothing? Excuse my ignorance. I understand that year to year we lose the burden of some contracts while likely gaining the burden of others. I understand certain players help offset their cost by presumably driving up attendance etc. But I think this has to be at least an indicator of where we can expect to be in years to come. To me, attendance and tv revenue need to greatly increase before I'd expect the budget to greatly increase. Hopefully, with a much improved roster, those things will happen as a result of a much improved record and we can expect higher "payroll/ budget" in the near future...

Since I worded it that way, "payroll/ budget", can anyone explain the difference between the payroll and the budget? Obviously payroll refers to the players salaries. Does budget include things like park improvements or are those completely separate entities?

[wildcard]

Even though most reports say the Orioles were in the $73M range in 2010, I believe we were closer to $62M when it was all said and done.

We are currently around $76M, so if we are over-budget that means we are at approximately $75M, which is fairly disappointing if true.

This would explain the nickle and diming of Uehara, but makes the Gregg move even more disappointing. It also calls into question the Accardo signing at over $1M.

And while this may not have an effect on future payrolls, I would think it would give a little glimpse.

I would hope this doesn't need to Scott being the one dealt because of monetary issues, but if he is traded, I could see him coupled with Harris.

I think there is a difference between budget and what has currently been spent.

Budget would have estimates for all the 25-27 man roster including estimates for the arbitration eligible and 1-3 year players that the O's will sign. That is the 78-80M budget the way I think about it.

The current amount spent would not include all the 25-27 man roster. I say 27 because Harris will probably start in the minors though he is on a ML contract. Berken or someone may start the year in the DL. DL guys continue to get their ML salaries.

[scOtt]

I'm betting this year's budget is a floating target, if it needs to be. ;)

[Crazysilver03]

I think there is a difference between budget and what has currently been spent.

Budget would have estimates for all the 25-27 man roster including estimates for the arbitration eligible and 1-3 year players that the O's will sign. That is the 78-80M budget the way I think about it.

The current amount spent would not include all the 25-27 man roster. I say 27 because Harris will probably start in the minors though he is on a ML contract. Berken or someone may start the year in the DL. DL guys continue to get their ML salaries.

I don't really see what difference you are trying to define here.

A budget is what you can spend and if you are over-budget, it is because you have over-spent. Luckily though, they still have time to trim the budget.

But this would also note that there may not be money to acquire someone mid-season if the Orioles are doing well, not that they have ever really acquired anyone of importance mid-season.

[wildcard]

I don't really see what difference you are trying to define here.

A budget is what you can spend and if you are over-budget, it is because you have over-spent. Luckily though, they still have time to trim the budget.

But this would also note that there may not be money to acquire someone mid-season if the Orioles are doing well, not that they have ever really acquired anyone of importance mid-season.

The difference is that the budget has in it players on the roster that have not been signed yet.

The amount spent does not.

[Crazysilver03]

The difference is that the budget has in it players on the roster that have not been signed yet.

The amount spent does not.

If you want to get into semantics, technically nothing has been spent yet.

The numbers presented, the $74M-$77M is the range of the payroll depending on where Scott and Guthrie fall.

[Sports Guy]

Nothing? Excuse my ignorance. I understand that year to year we lose the burden of some contracts while likely gaining the burden of others. I understand certain players help offset their cost by presumably driving up attendance etc. But I think this has to be at least an indicator of where we can expect to be in years to come. To me, attendance and tv revenue need to greatly increase before I'd expect the budget to greatly increase. Hopefully, with a much improved roster, those things will happen as a result of a much improved record and we can expect higher "payroll/ budget" in the near future...

Since I worded it that way, "payroll/ budget", can anyone explain the difference between the payroll and the budget? Obviously payroll refers to the players salaries. Does budget include things like park improvements or are those completely separate entities?
You just answered your own question. If the Orioles see a jump in attendance and TV revenue this season, then the budget can go up. That's how these things work.

Around the time the offseason started, I made a thread asking people to build their team using 85 million. I felt that was the high end of where the payroll would be this year and that looks to be accurate.

If you sell more tickets and do some more things on the TV/radio side, then the revenues being brought in go up and hopefully that means the team will spend more money.

[Crazysilver03]

The difference is that the budget has in it players on the roster that have not been signed yet.

The amount spent does not.

Why doesn't the amount spent have that?

The payroll numbers cited in this thread are for 27 roster spots. Hell, it is your numbers you came up with.

[Brendan25]

You just answered your own question. If the Orioles see a jump in attendance and TV revenue this season, then the budget can go up. That's how these things work.

Around the time the offseason started, I made a thread asking people to build their team using 85 million. I felt that was the high end of where the payroll would be this year and that looks to be accurate.

If you sell more tickets and do some more things on the TV/radio side, then the revenues being brought in go up and hopefully that means the team will spend more money.

Exactly. We have had this conversation before millions of times. It's the baseball "chicken and egg" argument.

Do you win first before you start spending more money on free agents, or do you start spending more money on free agents first and hope that you make up that money in revenue? It looks like at this time in the Orioles progression they are using the first scenario.

[TonySoprano]

As if Guerrero would totally break the bank, sending the team to financial ruin. We'd have Pete Angelos selling pencils from a cup outside the ballpark while his son John plays the violin, and wife Georgia holding a bake sale.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn160/TonySoprano2008/potter4.jpg

[Sports Guy]

Exactly. We have had this conversation before millions of times. It's the baseball "chicken and egg" argument.

Do you win first before you start spending more money on free agents, or do you start spending more money on free agents first and hope that you make up that money in revenue? It looks like at this time in the Orioles progression they are using the first scenario.

80-85 million is plenty of money to spend to win. You just have less margin for error and need to be smarter.

[Brendan25]

80-85 million is plenty of money to spend to win. You just have less margin for error and need to be smarter.

I completely agree. And I think that signing a guy like Duscherer could really be the last piece to this team being a contender this season.

[NCRaven]

You just answered your own question. If the Orioles see a jump in attendance and TV revenue this season, then the budget can go up. That's how these things work...If you sell more tickets and do some more things on the TV/radio side, then the revenues being brought in go up and hopefully that means the team will spend more money.

Also, keep in mind that the budget can change based on MacPhail's assessment of how competitive the team will be this year or next. If he believes that the team is ready to take the next step and compete for a spot in the playoffs, he and ownership can decide to increase the budget to take that next step. That could come at the trade deadline if we're surprisingly competitive during this season, or next off season if they think the team will be ready in 2012.

Also, it would help if some people (not SG, just in general) would read the articles linked and their followups and not just the OP. Zriebek states that he gets the impression that Angelos would be willing to increase the budget for Vlad if MacPhail felt it would help the team.

[El Gordo]

Normally this wouldn't bug me because you don't want to spend too much money that it prevents you from spending in the future. However, I don't see how signing Vlad to a one-year contract would hamstring us, so I don't understand the comment at all.It's meant to let Vlad's people know we are not budging from our initial low ball offer. If he wants to play full time, he can take it or leave it.

[JTrea81]

So they've exceeded the team budget and they are raising ticket prices as well. Nice.

MacPhail is continuing to hold this team back by his frugal budget. I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?

Also this club gets about $50 million from MLB in merchandising and TV sales as well as MLB.TV revenue.

So I don't see how they can continue to justify keeping the payroll below $90 million.

I know we aren't going to be able to have a $150 million dollar payroll, but we can at least go to $90 million to shore up the offense and pitching, especially because a lot of it is gone after the 2011 season.

[TradeAngelos]

This is called "we are not signing Vlad so let's make up an excuse to cover".

Comical we are talking about 1 year and a few million like it is a Tex contract that would blow our budget. And we all know there is just NO WAY we can afford that right now.

Just another "smart baseball move" for a perennial loser.

[Sports Guy]

So they've exceeded the team budget and they are raising ticket prices as well. Nice.

MacPhail is continuing to hold this team back by his frugal budget. I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?

Also this club gets about $50 million from MLB in merchandising and TV sales as well as MLB.TV revenue.

So I don't see how they can continue to justify keeping the payroll below $90 million.

I know we aren't going to be able to have a $150 million dollar payroll, but we can at least go to $90 million to shore up the offense and pitching, especially because a lot of it is gone after the 2011 season.
Really? Prove that because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ShaneDawg85]

So they've exceeded the team budget and they are raising ticket prices as well. Nice.

MacPhail is continuing to hold this team back by his frugal budget. I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?

Also this club gets about $50 million from MLB in merchandising and TV sales as well as MLB.TV revenue.

So I don't see how they can continue to justify keeping the payroll below $90 million.

I know we aren't going to be able to have a $150 million dollar payroll, but we can at least go to $90 million to shore up the offense and pitching, especially because a lot of it is gone after the 2011 season.

Your obsession over Duquette and Flannagan knows no limits. Besides that fact, they were grossly incompetent at actually spending it.

[RZNJ]

Really? Prove that because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Right. Let's blame the budget amount on MacPhail too! :rolleyes:

[TonySoprano]

I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?I wouldn't be so self-certain to give Angelos credit for spending. Flanagan got $90 million one time. Trade deals, such as one for Burnett, were shot down in Flanagan's time due to money.

This does go against those who defended the past few years budget's claiming we were saving money to spend in the future.

As other's stated, this is really the front office's way of announcing if Guerrero comes here, it'll be on the cheap.

[Frobby]

I wouldn't be so self-certain to give Angelos credit for spending. Flanagan got $90 million one time. Trade deals, such as one for Burnett, were shot down in Flanagan's time due to money.

This does go against those who defended the past few years budget's claiming we were saving money to spend in the future.

As other's stated, this is really the front office's way of announcing if Guerrero comes here, it'll be on the cheap.

The $93 mm payroll in 2007 was more or less balanced out by the $51 mm payroll in 2004. Per Cot's, the payroll has averaged $72 mm over the last 11 years, and this year's payroll of ~ $78 mm will probably be the second-highest since 2000, when the payroll was $83 mm. Meanwhile, in that same period of time, attendance has dropped from 3.3 mm to 1.7 mm. Until that trend reverses, I doubt we see any drastic increase in the budget. But that trend won't reverse unless the team starts winning a lot more games. Chicken, meet egg.

[J.D.]

Even though most reports say the Orioles were in the $73M range in 2010, I believe we were closer to $62M when it was all said and done.

We are currently around $76M, so if we are over-budget that means we are at approximately $75M, which is fairly disappointing if true.

This would explain the nickle and diming of Uehara, but makes the Gregg move even more disappointing. It also calls into question the Accardo signing at over $1M.

And while this may not have an effect on future payrolls, I would think it would give a little glimpse.

I would hope this doesn't need to Scott being the one dealt because of monetary issues, but if he is traded, I could see him coupled with Harris.

I think it's very premature to assume that the O's are going to be looking at unloading someone due to some financial constraints. Frankly, if the O's were all that concerned about going over budget, then they don't spend that money on Gregg when they can find a reliever for less money if they wait it out a bit. To me, his signing in the first place signals that they're willing to go over their budget if the right player is available to them at the right price.

As TonySoprano said, to me, this reeks of playing hardball with Vlad's agent. Honestly, at this point, Vlad's probably a luxury with the way the team's constructed. There's not a gaping hole at DH that Vlad fills. His addition merely allows Scott to move into LF, giving Reimold more time to rebound and providing an offensive upgrade, presumably, over Felix Pie. But his addition isn't a "make or break" signing. And to me, all that comment signifies is that they're not going to throw money at Vlad. They'll sign him at their price, and that'll be that. If he wants more money than what the O's value him at, then he'll have to find it elsewhere. Assuming that's the case, I don't see any problem with it.

Now, if I'm wrong and the O's really ARE going to trade off salary and/or stand pat because of financial constraints, then I'll be really concerned. But I haven't seen an indication of that yet. If you're worried about a budget, you don't shell out $6M on a reliever and then say, "Oops! We're over budget!"

[beervendor]

So they've exceeded the team budget and they are raising ticket prices as well. Nice.

You of all people DEMAND they exceed their budget, yet snidely criticize when they raise prices to allow it. Where do you think this money comes from?...


MacPhail is continuing to hold this team back by his frugal budget. I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?

...Oh, right, the super-secret bowels-of-the-warehouse-based Angelos Institute For Huge Piles of Gold. Only AM keeps forgetting his wheelbarrow.


So I don't see how they can continue to justify keeping the payroll below $90 million.

Sounds like one of those diabolical "business" decisions. Angelos probably just wants to make a "profit", and AM wants to keep his "job." Selfish SOBs!!!:rolleyes:
----------------------------
If the fans owned the team, things would be worse not better. I mean look at the Green Bay Packers, they're an abject fail-- uh, nevermind.

[DrungoHazewood]

Really? Prove that because you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you start all reasoning with the assumption that MacPhail is the worst GM in Orioles' history, and that he doesn't value winning, the rest falls in line pretty easily.

[Lateralus]

Pretty sad that our budget (even with inflation) is lower than it was 5, 10 years ago.

But, luckily that must mean all the extra MASN profits are going to be pumped in to scouting (both domestic and international), building up the farm system, getting more scouts, improving the game-day experience, etc.

Sweet.

[DrungoHazewood]

This does go against those who defended the past few years budget's claiming we were saving money to spend in the future.

I may have said or suggested that at some point. But now I believe that the O's, and most MLB teams, base this year's budget mainly on last year's revenues. Few teams are willing to spend beyond that on the hope that revenues will eventually follow.

Miss your window and not only do the shareholders get angry, but you've got a big, crippling financial hole to dig out of.

[DrungoHazewood]

Pretty sad that our budget (even with inflation) is lower than it was 5, 10 years ago.

But, luckily that must mean all the extra MASN profits are going to be pumped in to scouting (both domestic and international), building up the farm system, getting more scouts, improving the game-day experience, etc.

Sweet.

My best guess is that MASN revenues make up for almost 40% of the losses from attendance dropping.

[El Gordo]

So they've exceeded the team budget and they are raising ticket prices as well. Nice.

MacPhail is continuing to hold this team back by his frugal budget. I know Angelos gives him the money, but PGA is willing to give AM the budget he wants, and it seems AM seems refuses to ask for enough. Duquette and Flanagan got $90+ million out of him. Why can't MacPhail?

Also this club gets about $50 million from MLB in merchandising and TV sales as well as MLB.TV revenue.

So I don't see how they can continue to justify keeping the payroll below $90 million.

I know we aren't going to be able to have a $150 million dollar payroll, but we can at least go to $90 million to shore up the offense and pitching, especially because a lot of it is gone after the 2011 season.
It's amazing how you manage to get so close to PA that he unburdens his soul(if he has one) to you, but the regular press can't get a peep out of him.:laughlol:

[Sports Guy]

The $93 mm payroll in 2007 was more or less balanced out by the $51 mm payroll in 2004. Per Cot's, the payroll has averaged $72 mm over the last 11 years, and this year's payroll of ~ $78 mm will probably be the second-highest since 2000, when the payroll was $83 mm. Meanwhile, in that same period of time, attendance has dropped from 3.3 mm to 1.7 mm. Until that trend reverses, I doubt we see any drastic increase in the budget. But that trend won't reverse unless the team starts winning a lot more games. Chicken, meet egg.
And didn't that 93 million have a lot of dead salary in it from guys like Benson and Gibbons?

I mean, money spent is money spent but still, its not like they went out and spent 93 million on the players on the field.

[Frobby]

My best guess is that MASN revenues make up for almost 40% of the losses from attendance dropping.

Just curious, how do you come to that number?

[DrungoHazewood]

Just curious, how do you come to that number?

Back of the napkin, maybe I'm way off. But didn't someone say the MASN revenues were just short of $30M annually? The O's have lost ~2M in attendance from their peak in the late 90s. If you assume that's a loss of $50 a ticket (including stuff like parking and concessions), you're looking at $100M in missing revenues. Before I looked it up my original swag assumed 1.7M in lost attendance, $85M in revenues, so 30/85 is 35%.

Like I said, back of the napkin. If you want to nitpick, I probably could have said 20-50% or something.

[Frobby]

Back of the napkin, maybe I'm way off. But didn't someone say the MASN revenues were just short of $30M annually? The O's have lost ~2M in attendance from their peak in the late 90s. If you assume that's a loss of $50 a ticket (including stuff like parking and concessions), you're looking at $100M in missing revenues. Before I looked it up my original swag assumed 1.7M in lost attendance, $85M in revenues, so 30/85 is 35%.

Like I said, back of the napkin. If you want to nitpick, I probably could have said 20-50% or something.

I think MASN pays the Orioles rights fees of about $27 mm or so. But that doesn't tell you much, because (1) even before MASN, the O's were being paid about $18 mm for their TV rights, and (2) the $27 mm rights fee doesn't include the Orioles share of MASN's profits, which are unknown.

A few years ago, I read that revenue to the Orioles from attendance, including parking and concessions, etc., was roughly $40 per fan. $50 may be a decent guess now, or it still may be a little on the high side.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think MASN pays the Orioles rights fees of about $27 mm or so. But that doesn't tell you much, because (1) even before MASN, the O's were being paid about $18 mm for their TV rights, and (2) the $27 mm rights fee doesn't include the Orioles share of MASN's profits, which are unknown.

A few years ago, I read that revenue to the Orioles from attendance, including parking and concessions, etc., was roughly $40 per fan. $50 may be a decent guess now, or it still may be a little on the high side.

Good information, and all valid points.

I think we can still at least heavily lean in the direction of assuming the O's having less revenues today than 10 years ago. Well, at least local revenues.

[TakebackOPACY]

Good information, and all valid points.

I think we can still at least heavily lean in the direction of assuming the O's having less revenues today than 10 years ago. Well, at least local revenues.

Yup, MLBAM (Major League Baseball Advanced Media) is hugely successful! It's so successful, in fact, that MLB has passed the NFL as the highest revenue generating pro sports league in the U.S.. Who knows how much revenue goes back to the teams vs. getting reinvested into MLBAM.

[Dagger420]

You just answered your own question. If the Orioles see a jump in attendance and TV revenue this season, then the budget can go up. That's how these things work.

Around the time the offseason started, I made a thread asking people to build their team using 85 million. I felt that was the high end of where the payroll would be this year and that looks to be accurate.

If you sell more tickets and do some more things on the TV/radio side, then the revenues being brought in go up and hopefully that means the team will spend more money.

I also think that 10 or 20 million not spent this season, means an extra 10 or 20 million to spend in future seasons, plus possibly more if the money is sitting somewhere earning interest (even though rates are putrid). You save 20 million that you could have spent for five years and thats $100 million you can use toward really making a run. I'm just hoping and praying that this is what they are doing because by no means should 70-80 be our actual budget with how much this team has spent in the past and our estimated revenue stream.

My problem with people saying that if the attendance increases we should spend more is that everyone and their mother knows darn well that this market has a huge potential for producing attendance and profit. Look at the Ravens, they have no problem selling out every game and you see people wearing purple everywhere during the season. So you know that Peter and the O's know that they need to make an investment for those numbers to go up. Its not like there's a shortage of baseball fans, people are just tired of seeing a $60 million payroll team competing against the big boys. Nobody likes losing and before their numbers improve they are going to have to spend. Its like looking at your bank statement and being upset that you're not earning as much interest on $500 as you were on $2000. You have to spend money to make money in any business. Everyone in Baltimore knows they are getting ripped off every time they spend money on a ticket and you can't expect people to come out in droves. Peter's got the money, he's going to have to spend it though if he wants to improve the revenue in.

I just hope AM is trying to save money these past few years in order to really splurge when winning is closer. If they are just waiting on more fans to come out to the games, I think they will be waiting a long time.

[Bradysburns]

I may have said or suggested that at some point. But now I believe that the O's, and most MLB teams, base this year's budget mainly on last year's revenues. Few teams are willing to spend beyond that on the hope that revenues will eventually follow.

Miss your window and not only do the shareholders get angry, but you've got a big, crippling financial hole to dig out of.

When did baseball become such a small-margin business? What strikes me as BS about all this rational-sounding argumentation is this. It's all presented as if the Orioles were operating in a vacuum.

Bottom line is: We can fairly compare the Orioles operation to other MLB teams as a benchmark for where we should be, where we were, where we're going, etc. Consider these facts:

- Last year, we were outspent by the Kansas City Royals.

- Last year, the Twins payroll exceeded $100 million

- Last year, a full 1/3 of all MLB team salaries exceeded $100 million

- Just to be in the top half of payrolls last year, you had to spend more than $90 million.

This year, we add some cast-offs through trades... we add a solid middle-reliever in Gregg... and a bargain, one-year stop-gap first baseman... and we're suddenly "over budget?"

What is the budget, and what is it based on? Does anyone really know?

It just doesn't pass the sniff test. Or at least it begs a whole bunch of questions about how this organization is being run, from a financial perspective.

[Lateralus]

I also think that 10 or 20 million not spent this season, means an extra 10 or 20 million to spend in future seasons, plus possibly more if the money is sitting somewhere earning interest (even though rates are putrid). You save 20 million that you could have spent for five years and thats $100 million you can use toward really making a run. I'm just hoping and praying that this is what they are doing because by no means should 70-80 be our actual budget with how much this team has spent in the past and our estimated revenue stream.

Shoot, if that's the case the O's should have a Scrooge McDuck-like vault full of unused funds from the past decade.

[JTrea81]

Shoot, if that's the case the O's should have a Scrooge McDuck-like vault full of unused funds from the past decade.

You haven't heard of Angelos' money bin? ;)

[TonySoprano]

I think MASN pays the Orioles rights fees of about $27 mm or so. But that doesn't tell you much, because (1) even before MASN, the O's were being paid about $18 mm for their TV rights, and (2) the $27 mm rights fee doesn't include the Orioles share of MASN's profits, which are unknown.

A few years ago, I read that revenue to the Orioles from attendance, including parking and concessions, etc., was roughly $40 per fan. $50 may be a decent guess now, or it still may be a little on the high side.


We kicked the MASN money topic around a couple of weeks ago. It could be that Pete Angelos, and not the Orioles, is the owner (and sole profiteer of) MASN. (see my previous post (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2343460&postcount=55))

[weams]

I was just watching PBS. Ireland is bankrupt. They spent more than they made.

Seriously, We all know that the franchise has been run poorly. I think that we are closing in on a turnaround.

Angelos will never spend his personal fortune on us no matter how much we might beg.

[Lateralus]

You haven't heard of Angelos' money bin? ;)

So, in this case who plays the roles of Magica De Spell and The Beagle Boys?

[weams]

We kicked the MASN money topic around a couple of weeks ago. It could be that Pete Angelos, and not the Orioles, is the owner (and sole profiteer of) MASN. (see my previous post (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2343460&postcount=55))

You are correct. The Orioles as a corporation do not own MASN, they get paid a revenue stream for licensing at a decreasing percentage over the years. The Nats get paid at an increasing rate. This was MLB's deal with Peter Angelos as a compensation for the infringement that the Nationals would impose on Peter's investment in the Orioles.

[JTrea81]

We kicked the MASN money topic around a couple of weeks ago. It could be that Pete Angelos, and not the Orioles, is the owner (and sole profiteer of) MASN. (see my previous post (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2343460&postcount=55))

Correct, it is Peter Angelos' option to invest those profits into the Orioles or not. He said he would, but I'm not sure that he's been asked to.

[Sports Guy]

Correct, it is Peter Angelos' option to invest those profits into the Orioles or not. He said he would, but I'm not sure that he's been asked to.

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

[Moose Milligan]

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

He ducked your question earlier, right?

Just checking.

[weams]

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

You are right. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. And you guys say he has no sense of humor. :)

[Sports Guy]

He ducked your question earlier, right?

Just checking.

Of course he did.

[TonySoprano]

Really? Prove that because you have no idea what you are talking about.FWIW, MacPhail, like Flanagan before him, has publicly stated that Angelos is willing to spend. They don't print the fine point of the agreement that reads "up to a limit."

[Frobby]

We kicked the MASN money topic around a couple of weeks ago. It could be that Pete Angelos, and not the Orioles, is the owner (and sole profiteer of) MASN. (see my previous post (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2343460&postcount=55))

The reports about this have been very ambiguous. MASN could be owned by (1) the Orioles, (2) the same group that owns the Orioles, or (3) Angelos or some sub-group of group (2).

I am betting that it is option (2) (plus the Nats ownership interest). This is how YES is structured. It allows the Yankees to play games with MLB's revenue-sharing requirements by setting the rights fees lower (making revenues that have to be shared lower), while the exact same owners then get higher profits within YES.

[JTrea81]

Really? Prove that because you have no idea what you are talking about.

MacPhail has said many times that he's never had a problem asking for money.

Duquette has said that PGA always gave them the money they wanted with the best example being the Lee pursuit.

Why would Duquette and MacPhail both lie?

[TradeAngelos]

I think MASN pays the Orioles rights fees of about $27 mm or so. But that doesn't tell you much, because (1) even before MASN, the O's were being paid about $18 mm for their TV rights, and (2) the $27 mm rights fee doesn't include the Orioles share of MASN's profits, which are unknown.

A few years ago, I read that revenue to the Orioles from attendance, including parking and concessions, etc., was roughly $40 per fan. $50 may be a decent guess now, or it still may be a little on the high side.

How about the $75 million Angelos got up front from the deal from the Nats and MASN?

Where exactly does that factor in? Details, details I know.

[Sports Guy]

MacPhail has said many times that he's never had a problem asking for money.

Duquette has said that PGA always gave them the money they wanted with the best example being the Lee pursuit.

Why would Duquette and MacPhail both lie?

None of this says PA is willing to have a payroll of 90-120 million for this season.

[Mad Mark]

Reasonable people--meaning everyone other than the Prophet of the One True Way and his Merry Band--can agree that 1) Andy MacPhail is not stupid and 2) Andy MacPhail is 100% honest with the press only when he needs to be. Whether or not this snippet is a message to Vlad Guerrero's agent is something only MacPhail knows.
Things will play out as they play out...and when.

[Frobby]

How about the $75 million Angelos got up front from the deal from the Nats and MASN?

Where exactly does that factor in? Details, details I know.

That was a payment for part ownership in the network. The economics of this are complicated, and we just don't have much information. I think it is likely that Angelos has made a lot of money off MASN, but I really don't know for sure, and just how much is anyone's guess.

[Sports Guy]

That was a payment for part ownership in the network. The economics of this are complicated, and we just don't have much information. I think it is likely that Angelos has made a lot of money off MASN, but I really don't know for sure, and just how much is anyone's guess.
I think PA has set up MASN to make sure it profits Peter Angelos. If/when he sells the team, I don't think it will matter all that much.

For years, the Orioles never felt a team would go to DC. PA was afraid of it because he felt he was going to lose a lot money. So, when it actually happened, PA made sure to set things up to the point where he could make a lot of money from it.

He has made sure that when he sells the team, that he will make the money.

This was all about Peter Angelos IMO..not the well being of the Orioles franchise.

[Pasadena Paul]

If it is true, I believe it is the O's saying we are now basically done for this year. If the right players and deals were able to be made, the budget may have been a lot higher. But since this is what we've done, I think AM doesn't see the need to expand it unless its someone he sees filling a hole that internally we can't.

[Pasadena Paul]

Everyone keeps saying the O's have lost all the attendence revenue. Well I guess everyone forgot or didn't know that part of the agreement the O's made with MLB to let Wash in is that the O's are guarenteed the equivalent of 2.5 mil fans. So 1.7 doesn't matter. Base your numbers on 2.5. Say what you want,but PA is one hell of a buisness man.

[hoosiers]

That was a payment for part ownership in the network. The economics of this are complicated, and we just don't have much information. I think it is likely that Angelos has made a lot of money off MASN, but I really don't know for sure, and just how much is anyone's guess.

I thought there were quotes that the payment reflected risk and cost born by PA and the MASN ownership group to start MASN.

I do not believe AM has made a lot of $ off MASN. I base this off the lack of growth in the fees paid to the Os and Nats.

[TrappedinWV]

I may have said or suggested that at some point. But now I believe that the O's, and most MLB teams, base this year's budget mainly on last year's revenues. Few teams are willing to spend beyond that on the hope that revenues will eventually follow.

Miss your window and not only do the shareholders get angry, but you've got a big, crippling financial hole to dig out of.

This is the safe way to budget and probably is mixed with MLB's projections with the team tweaking the numbers for what they expect.

[scOtt]

You would hope that some kind of situation that would push the O's towards serious contention would lead to more money being pried loose. They're not that far from the win range where 5 wins might bust loose $10s of millions in playoff revenues.
I try not to quote people from this early in the thread, especially before I've read all 7 pages... but is it really that much? $10s of millions? I didn't realize.

[weams]

I think PA has set up MASN to make sure it profits Peter Angelos. If/when he sells the team, I don't think it will matter all that much.

For years, the Orioles never felt a team would go to DC. PA was afraid of it because he felt he was going to lose a lot money. So, when it actually happened, PA made sure to set things up to the point where he could make a lot of money from it.

He has made sure that when he sells the team, that he will make the money.

This was all about Peter Angelos IMO..not the well being of the Orioles franchise.

I still think that the Nationals were a very bad thing for us.

[Frobby]

I try not to quote people from this early in the thread, especially before I've read all 7 pages... but is it really that much? $10s of millions? I didn't realize.

Here's an article that gives a pretty good feel for this:


The Angels reported $12.1 million in revenue from hosting five first- and second-round playoff games in 2009 and nearly $4.4 million for hosting two first-round games in 2008, according to the reports published by Deadspin.com.

The Rays made almost $17.7 million in revenue on the six postseason games they hosted in 2008. Having two home games in the World Series helped boost those results.

The Twins might not be able to expect as much revenue from early-round games as the Angels made last year, but they should be able to surpass the Rays’ results, said Maury Brown, founder and president of the Business of Sports Network, which includes the Biz of Baseball website.

“It’s in the millions of dollars,” Brown said of the financial impact the Twins will receive from making the playoffs this year. “And depending on how far they go, it could be upwards of $10 million.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2010/09/27/story1.html?b=1285560000%255e3988401

[DrungoHazewood]

I try not to quote people from this early in the thread, especially before I've read all 7 pages... but is it really that much? $10s of millions? I didn't realize.


Here's an article that gives a pretty good feel for this:



http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2010/09/27/story1.html?b=1285560000%255e3988401

And that doesn't even account for the follow on effects of increased ticket sales over the next several years. I'd read an article about the Tigers' WS appearance a few years back that indicated when all was said and done they could expect more than $30M in increased revenues, some of it spread over several years.

[beervendor]

Everyone keeps saying the O's have lost all the attendence revenue. Well I guess everyone forgot or didn't know that part of the agreement the O's made with MLB to let Wash in is that the O's are guarenteed the equivalent of 2.5 mil fans. So 1.7 doesn't matter. Base your numbers on 2.5. Say what you want,but PA is one hell of a buisness man.

What equivalent? The guarantee is franchise sale price floor. Completely irrelevant to their operating profit/loss. Some here keep spouting off about all this mythical MASN cash. I'm only guessing but the startup costs of a TV network and the $20+MM annual rights fee to the Nats, plus the ratings for two of the worst teams in MLB probably don't add up to a whole lot of profit right now. Whether Angelos "owes" it to the fans to dump any MASN profit back into O's payroll is another (ridiculous) debate, but I'm guessing it's moot for now.

Agreed PA is very shrewd, and if he were penniless today 10 generations of little Angeloses could probably live luxuriously off future MASN profits. Just don't think it has much to do with signing Vlad.

[JohnnyK27]

This year's budget has nothing to do with the budget in 2012 and beyond.

Alsoit has nothing to do with all the money saved by being extremely frugal for ten years. I'm certain Pete has saved for the day where spending with make a real difference.

[Sports Guy]

Do you guys think that amateur signings could be effected by this?

[Crazysilver03]

Do you guys think that amateur signings could be effected by this?

I would hope not.

If the Orioles have really reached their budget, then this off-season doesn't look nearly as good, especially the Gregg and Accardo signings.

[Hayden2004]

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
#orioles could use vlad guerrero, but word is, they have "limited funds at this stage.'' #rangers out on vlad now

[Lateralus]

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
#orioles could use vlad guerrero, but word is, they have "limited funds at this stage.'' #rangers out on vlad now

Shocked that the O's haven't filed for Chapter 8 yet.

[hoosiers]

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
#orioles could use vlad guerrero, but word is, they have "limited funds at this stage.'' #rangers out on vlad now

Notice that it does not say "Os are out on Vlad" or "Os do not have space for Vlad". Hopefully, for those who want Vlad in Bmore, he'll accept "limited funds".

[TonySoprano]

Notice that it does not say "Os are out on Vlad" or "Os do not have space for Vlad". Hopefully, for those who want Vlad in Bmore, he'll accept "limited funds".

or, at least, this
http://www.csaquotes.com/images/831_T50CR361A-14535.jpg;)

[hoosiers]

Funny, Tony. The thing is that we do appear to be offering Confederate $ and still may be in the proverbial driver's seat.