Jump to content

O's have exceeded 2011 budget


wildcard

Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...