Jones wants say in offseason, plans to meet with Angelos

[Nevermore]

You think Angelos didn't make money EVERY YEAR of the 14 year losing streak? Bottom line is the bottom line. Angelos doesn't HAVE to win to make money. Winning costs contracts and cuts into the bottom line.

So in other words, the Orioles are winning in spite of Peter Angelos?

[JayThomas]

The O's Mount Olympus should be reserved for Hall of Famers....and I don't think Jones is going to make the hall......Machado on the other hand has a shot.

Machado, at this point in his career, is a shoe-in.

[cmgable]

I hope Adam also concerns himself with playing better. He is a great Oriole but never comes through in the clutch. That's why he is always the guy with the pie in the hand and not in the face because he doesn't ever have the walk off hit. This year is more about our players not getting the job done than it is about the offseason.

[Can_of_corn]

I hope Adam also concerns himself with playing better. He is a great Oriole but never comes through in the clutch. That's why he is always the guy with the pie in the hand and not in the face because he doesn't ever have the walk off hit. This year is more about our players not getting the job done than it is about the offseason.

I've heard fans argue that he doesn't get hits in important situations. Well, his game-winning RBI last night was his second in this series against the Rays and his 14th this season according to STATS, which is tied for third in the American League.

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2015/09/adam-jones-game-winning-rbis-jonathan-schoops-streak-and-todays-game.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[weams]

All of these points are valid, but if you were forced to bet your money on whether DD is spending the money available to him in his operational budget or not, where would you place your money? Not knowing for sure is a lot different than all ideas are equally likely.

By the way, my take just to be clear:

1) I think Dan proposes a total operational budget rather than being dictated a budget.

2) I do think the budget is operational rather than strictly allocated to individual areas like player salary, scouting etc.. I think he provides a ROM estimate for the individual areas to PGA at the time of his budget proposal.

3) I think PGA has to agree on the budget but it isn't a hard cap so much as a ROM plan with a total predicted cap.

4) If an opportunity presented itself over that cap, I think DD could go to PGA to explain why he thought it was a good risk to go over the plan. Make no mistake though, he would have to ask and present a strong case and he still may not hear a yes.

I think most of those things because DD basically said that this was the process in interviews during the last couple off seasons just as he more or less said that his 2015 budget would be a bit higher than 2014. These things are in print so we aren't exactly guessing out of thin air.

I am certain folks will say he is a liar. But is very clear that not only he but others in the recent past have indicated this. The days of per deal involvement are so 2007.

[weams]

So in other words, the Orioles are winning in spite of Peter Angelos?

[24fps]

The mention of Disneyland is interesting. Once upon a time Disney owned the Angeles and they tried some of this stuff - peppy cheerleader-types on the dugouts between innings and the like. It was dreadful. And ultimately abandoned. One of Disney's rare marketing missteps.

I get enhancing the ballpark experience, especially for families with small kids up to a point, but it looks like the Brewers are just devaluing the game experience itself and that's a shame.

[spiritof66]

I don't believe that they had real losses. Not real.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real losses," but let me explain what I'm trying to say.

Each year, Forbes gathers what it says (and I believe it) is the best information available to it and estimates how much cash a team takes in and how much it pays out. (I'm not sure whether Forbes includes luxury tax payments and receipts, which it doesn't mention as far as I see.) Those numbers may be off, but most observers seem to think that they're fairly close for the vast majority of all teams, and I'm not aware of any better data to look at.

The Forbes numbers show that most teams in most years take in more money from their baseball operations than than they spend; that is, they have operating profits. But these numbers also show that in each year some teams spend more on their baseball operations than they take in; that is, they have operating losses. I would call those "real losses."

Whether teams have income or losses for purposes of paying income taxes is a very different question. Teams pay interest on their borrowings, which Forbes ignores, and those payments can be deducted for income tax purposes. In addition, MLB teams have significant assets that can be depreciated or amortized. (ML, spring training and MiL stadiums owned by the team are the most obvious examples, but there are lots of other team-owned assets that can be depreciated or amortized -- I'm no expert on the details.) That is, a portion of these assets' value can be deducted from the team's income for tax purposes on the theory that the team's investment in them has lost a portion of its value in that year even though no cash payment was made. Forbes ignores those amounts, too. There may be ways MLB teams can exclude revenues from taxable income or take deductions that Forbes doesn't count (or doesn't have information about), reducing taxable income; again, I don't know the details.

So, a team that has operating profits that can be put in the owner's pocket or used toward next year's payroll, or put aside to buy or replenish or replace assets in the future, may have, for income tax purposes, much lower income, or none at all, or tax losses that it can use to reduce taxes on other income (or on the team's taxes in other years). I agree that a team that had operating profits but reports losses for tax purposes does not have "real losses." But the Forbes numbers suggest that some teams, in some years, have what I would consider "real losses." But don't worry about the owners of teams with real losses; they or their heirs will make those losses up many times over when the team is sold.

[Nevermore]

But it is still a budget. I guess I don't understand what you're arguing. You seemed to be arguing that DD could spend another 10-15M on salary this season and add long term liabilities without much issue. I think that is very unlikely. Could he have convinced PGA to go up another 3-5M without much trouble? Probably. No way he could have persuaded him for another 10-15M IMO. With 3-5M more, he couldn't have gotten Cruz. He would have had to cut ties with 2-3 other decent players or one big player like Davis to get Cruz. I also think the out years would have been an issue for PGA due to the MASN dispute.

No, what I'm saying is that DD shouldn't automatically dismiss paying 10-15M on salary if the particular player is likely to help the O's with winning seasons. I am NOT saying go spend willy-nilly on each and every expensive player.

[weams]

I'm not sure what you mean by "real losses," but let me explain what I'm trying to say.

Each year, Forbes gathers what it says (and I believe it) is the best information available to it and estimates how much cash a team takes in and how much it pays out. (I'm not sure whether Forbes includes luxury tax payments and receipts, which it doesn't mention as far as I see.) Those numbers may be off, but most observers seem to think that they're fairly close for the vast majority of all teams, and I'm not aware of any better data to look at.

The Forbes numbers show that most teams in most years take in more money from their baseball operations than than they spend; that is, they have operating profits. But these numbers also show that in each year some teams spend more on their baseball operations than they take in; that is, they have operating losses. I would call those "real losses."

Whether teams have income or losses for purposes of paying income taxes is a very different question. Teams pay interest on their borrowings, which Forbes ignores, and those payments can be deducted for income tax purposes. In addition, MLB teams have significant assets that can be depreciated or amortized. (ML, spring training and MiL stadiums owned by the team are the most obvious examples, but there are lots of other team-owned assets that can be depreciated or amortized -- I'm no expert on the details.) That is, a portion of these assets' value can be deducted from the team's income for tax purposes on the theory that the team's investment in them has lost a portion of its value in that year even though no cash payment was made. Forbes ignores those amounts, too. There may be ways MLB teams can exclude revenues from taxable income or take deductions that Forbes doesn't count (or doesn't have information about), reducing taxable income; again, I don't know the details.

So, a team that has operating profits that can be put in the owner's pocket or used toward next year's payroll, or put aside to buy or replenish or replace assets in the future, may have, for income tax purposes, much lower income, or none at all, or tax losses that it can use to reduce taxes on other income (or on the team's taxes in other years). I agree that a team that had operating profits but reports losses for tax purposes does not have "real losses." But the Forbes numbers suggest that some teams, in some years, have what I would consider "real losses." But don't worry about the owners of teams with real losses; they or their heirs will make those losses up many times over when the team is sold.

Excellent post.

[waroriole]

I hope Adam also concerns himself with playing better. He is a great Oriole but never comes through in the clutch. That's why he is always the guy with the pie in the hand and not in the face because he doesn't ever have the walk off hit. This year is more about our players not getting the job done than it is about the offseason.

This is stupid. His pie face numbers are low? At one point, weren't about 80% of his HR to tie the game or put us ahead?

[weams]

This is stupid. His pie face numbers are low? At one point, weren't about 80% of his HR to tie the game or put us ahead?

Forget it. It is an anti Jones agenda that some try to advance.

[waroriole]

Forget it. It is an anti Jones agenda that some try to advance.

Bubblegate?

[weams]

Bubblegate?

He wears his hat right. So...

Remember when he was lazy too?

[Dark Helmet]

Machado, at this point in his career, is a shoe-in.

Sad he might not go in as an Oriole.