Question: Why can the Nationals afford more payroll than the O's?

[OFFNY]

That's all I'm saying. At least you understand what I'm trying to get across. Didn't know my post would be so unholy.

Your post was not "unholy," it was inaccurate.

If anything, the Orioles' front office was cheaper during the glory years of the franchise than they have been as of late.

So your insinuation that the history of the team has been pissed on because of the frugality of the current front office has little or no basis in fact.

[MagicBird]

It's a popular opinion. Any quick look at the stats would show you that we hit more home runs and scored more runs this year than last, and that the starting pitching was the main problem, but most trolls are emotional and don't like to think, so I understand why you feel that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what did DD do to improve the team?

Maybe you have a valid explanation for the emotional trolls?

[mdbdotcom]

So what did DD do to improve the team?

Maybe you have a valid explanation for the emotional trolls?

Why do people think that things not working out is the same thing as doing nothing? It's a game. Some times you win, some times you lose. Just ask the Nats.

If scraping Nate McClouth and Miguel Gonzalez from the bottom of the barrel in 2012 hadn't worked out as well as it did, perhaps people wouldn't expect Duquette to possess some sort of Midas touch now. He did his job last off season the way he always does it, but this time they also raised payroll to keep the arb eligible player and keep the team intact as much as possible. Since 2012, payroll has risen by more than $30 million, largely because as young, cheap players mature, they make a lot more money.

It's great to have winning baseball back in Baltimore.

[George]

Didn't need to be big spenders before free agency and the player's union. In those halcyon days for fans, owners dictated player salaries. Excellent cartel for owners in the good old days. Fans enjoyed cheap prices for tickets, e.g., box seats to see Brooks, Frank, and Jim play in the mid to late 1960s were $3. Only the workers had a raw deal. Imagine that,

[MagicBird]

Why do people think that things not working out is the same thing as doing nothing? It's a game. Some times you win, some times you lose. Just ask the Nats.

If scraping Nate McClouth and Miguel Gonzalez from the bottom of the barrel in 2012 hadn't worked out as well as it did, perhaps people wouldn't expect Duquette to possess some sort of Midas touch now. He did his job last off season the way he always does it, but this time they also raised payroll to keep the arb eligible player and keep the team intact as much as possible. Since 2012, payroll has risen by more than $30 million, largely because as young, cheap players mature, they make a lot more money.

It's great to have winning baseball back in Baltimore.

It was reasonable to expect that a healthy Davis, Machado, and Weiters would be an improvement and most likely offset the loss of Cruz and Markakis. DD was 2 out of 3 on that. NOTHING else worked out well. I didnt think we would be this bad this year, but what we did was basically stick with status quo rather than really try and improve a team that was close. Its not accurate to say DD did anything to improve the club.

And yes winning again is great.

[OFFNY]

Didn't need to be big spenders before free agency and the player's union. In those halcyon days for fans, owners dictated player salaries. Excellent cartel for owners in the good old days. Fans enjoyed cheap prices for tickets, e.g., box seats to see Brooks, Frank, and Jim play in the mid to late 1960's were $3. Only the workers had a raw deal. Imagine that,

That's correct about the time period from from the early 60's through the mid-70's, but the Orioles' dynasty/glory years extended into the mid-80's, and the front office (at that time) did not spend anywhere near what the other top-payroll clubs spent from 1977-1984.

The Fred Lynn signing (I believe) was the first time that the Orioles sprung for what would be considered an expensive free agent, and that was just prior to the 1985 season.

[MemorialStadKid]

I'd love to have that problem, but we don't because we never do. I can at least respect the BlueJays for going deep twice in 2 years to improve their ballclub. While I sit here and watch The Baltimore Orioles and Orioles Hangout sell me on Travis Synder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Good one.

MSK

[o'sfansince1970]

It should be noted that both teams missed the playoffs. Payroll doesn't matter.

Can you imagine the @#$%storm this place would look like if we had a 177 million payroll and didn't make the playoffs? The amount of whining would be insane.

You'd think it was coming out of their pocket.:rolleyestf:

[weams]

Ted Lerner is worth 5 Billion

Wow. That much? That is like 5 times more than the whole Angelos Family. Right?

[spiritof66]

Just going by numbers at Baseball Reference. (Not counting players traded or released this year on either team)

Nationals Payroll $177M,

vs.

Orioles Payroll $99M

Why can the Nats afford a larger payroll?

I don't know where your numbers come from, but IMO the basic answer to your question isn't very complicated. By the nature of these franchises, the Nats have and will continue to have, on average, more money to spend on player payroll than the Orioles.

Washington's metro area has a population about twice that of the Baltimore metro area. Metro Washington also has a higher per capita income than metro Baltimore, and it also has (I believe) more large firms to buy season tickets at their rather than individual fans' expense, so that the Nats command higher ticket prices and luxury box revenues.

The available numbers bear out this comparison. According to Forbes, the Nats' total revenues were $287 million last year, $42 million more than the Orioles' $245 million. The Nats' higher gate receipts ($92 million to $60 million, according to Forbes) accounted for most of that difference. If the latter figures are correct, the Nats averaged gate receipts of about $35 per ticket sold in 2014, while the Orioles took in about $26 per ticket sold.

These differences suggest that, if the two teams' owners have similar profit expectations, the Nats are able to spend on average about $35 to $40 million per year more than the Orioles on baseball operations, including player payroll. It may be that this gap is even larger because the Nats' owners are more able and willing than the Orioles' owners to operate at a loss or a very low profit while they build the Nats franchise and fan base (and take away the Orioles' D.C. following), but I know of no evidence to support that.

While the MASN deal compensates the Orioles for some portion of the erosion of their fan base from the advent of the Nats, the effects of that deal will diminish over time and will be reduced significantly if MLB's arbitration award is upheld (as the Orioles have to assume will be the case in planning for 2016).

[Odenton O]

That's correct about the time period from from the early 60's through the mid-70's, but the Orioles' dynasty/glory years extended into the mid-80's, and the front office (at that time) did not spend anywhere near what the other top-payroll clubs spent from 1977-1984.

The Fred Lynn signing (I believe) was the first time that the Orioles sprung for what would be considered an expensive free agent, and that was just prior to the 1985 season.

To complete the circle, the "high payroll" era of Orioles history was in the late 90's, when the Orioles had, at one point, the highest payroll in the league. Those days produced a Wild Card, a Division title, and at least one overpriced disaster of a season. And that was all under the Angelos regime.

[I Love The O's]

I mostly agree with this post. I'm not sure I'd phrase it as strongly as this, but for the most part, I'd say its accurate. It's not really fair to compare the glory days, 60-84, to today's MLB. To say we were more frugal back then is not really accurate. Free agency didn't hit until after 76 as I recall. We made that Reggie trade and lost Baylor, we lost Grich, we lost Reggie, we lost a few others. But the difference then, was we still had a deep farm system that delivered us into those early 80's teams. Plus we made a great trade with the Yankees that got us Dempsey, McGregor, and Tippy Martinez. We still had Dennis Martinez and Flanagan come up and Ripken and Dauer. We had enough in the pipeline to sustain us.

Then, we tried to spend with the other teams, but chose the wrong players. In the mid 90's we spent as much as anyone. We drew as much as anyone too. Let's face it, since the Belle contract blew up on us, we've been trying to do it cheaply. That is not going to work in the AL East. Every fan that is honest with themselves will admit that. Especially when we don't have the player development like we did in the 60's and 70's.

The Nationals prices are higher, but I would gladly pay 12 bucks more a ticket to see us raise our payroll and keep guys like Davis. I've been a fan since 1970, and since the Colts left, I really only care about 2 teams, the Orioles and Maryland Basketball. If we let Davis go, I'm going to take it pretty hard. I'll never stop being a fan, but I'll probably go back to not watching or attending games like I did until the last 3 years or so.

I not only think we lost production from Cruz and Markakis, I think we lost a lot of what made us a team. I remember watching Cruz joke around with the younger players. It sure looked like he loved to be here. I'm happy Manny said he'd like to stay, but if they let Davis go, I don't think there is any way he signs long term. I love this team, and it will break my heart to see Davis leave.

[spiritof66]

Ted Lerner is worth 5 Billion

According Forbes' listing of the 400 wealthiest Americans, Lerner is the wealthiest MLB owner, with a net worth of $5.5 billion:

"Major League Baseball's richest owner is Ted Lerner, who made his billions in real estate. Lerner is worth $5.5 billion, up 22%, and ranks No. 86 overall [in the Forbes 400]. Seven other MLB owners made the 400, including Detroit Tigers? owners Michael and Marian Ilitch ($5.4 billion), who also own the NHL?s Detroit Red Wings, San Francisco Giants managing partner Charles Johnson ($5.3 billion) and Ray Davis ($3 billion) of the Texas Rangers.

"Baseball includes two owners, who are returnees to Forbes 400 this year in Boston Red Sox boss John Henry ($2.2 billion), who last appeared in the 400s in 2013, and Los Angeles Angels owner Arturo Moreno ($1.8 billion), who made the cut in 2012."

[birdcrazy]

At one point the Orioles had the highest payroll in MLB in Angelos first couple years.

I think the potential and eventual relocation of the Nationals is what caused Peter to clamp down on Payroll the most. Remember in the late 90's into the very early 2000's the team pulled 40K fans a night on the norma. Many of those were driving up from DC. Signing long term contracts requires forecasting income up to 7 years in advance. So if you are Peter, trying to read the future say 2002-2003, it is pretty scary. So I think he clamped down on payroll, and to a degree it was appropriate. The Nationals hurt the value and revenue of the Orioles across the board. Yes there is the MASN deal that is supposed to compensate them for that..but it is obvious with the way MLB is trying to get out of it, you can't count on that. Supposedly during the lean years, Angelos had to write checks to cover losses the team was running. Yes, a lot of it was poor product, but even winning the AL East last year, attendance was nowhere near pre Nationals.

Couple that with the Orioles having terrible long term contract luck, and you could see why Angelos is shy. Albert Belle? Brian Roberts? Nick Markakis? Miguel Tejada? Ubaldo? The core of the current team was either found in the dumpster, or developed.

And I think that is where the ultimate conclusion is. If you were an MLB owner, would you rather be Royal, Pirates, Astros, or whatever low payroll, high return team out there. Or would you be the Nationals, Red Sox and Tigers spending a lot of $$ to lose.

The Nationals were in a bad position at the trade deadline because the owners said they would not take anymore payroll. I would not be surprised if the team is losing money, and Lerner is subsidizing them.

[DrungoHazewood]

And people would still be complaining about not spending enough.

The Nats writers and fans have been openly wondering if their fortunes would have turned out better if not for the MASN situation limiting their payroll.