Angelos and Money Thread (Here Be Monsters!)

[Pickles]

It will be interesting to see if they can afford Gordon. They are currently at $86M before arbitration salaries. If you add the projected arb salaries for those they offered, you add another $21Mish. So, you're around $107M plus another $5M or so for ML minimums and small stuff or $112M. That was last year's payroll entering the season. I'm sure they've got 15-25M more available, but I wonder if it is enough to land Gordon and fill other needs. It will be interesting to see how hard they go after him.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Anybody else find it odd that the KC Royals basically have our payroll?

Anybody think they're in near the same market that the O's are?

[DrungoHazewood]

Anybody else find it odd that the KC Royals basically have our payroll?

Anybody think they're in near the same market that the O's are?

Niesen thinks Baltimore is the 26th-largest media market in the US (0.96% of total), Kansas City the 31st (0.81%). That's without the $billions in MA$N cash siphoned from DC.

[weams]

Niesen thinks Baltimore is the 26th-largest media market in the US (0.96% of total), Kansas City the 31st (0.81%). That's without the $billions in MA$N cash siphoned from DC.

Has it really be that long? Billion(s)? Plural? Wow. I am behind the times.

[Pickles]

Niesen thinks Baltimore is the 26th-largest media market in the US (0.96% of total), Kansas City the 31st (0.81%). That's without the $billions in MA$N cash siphoned from DC.

MD's the wealthiest state in the Nation too.

And you can mock it, but if MASN isn't extremely profitable something's terribly wrong.

[Ruzious]

Has it really be that long? Billion(s)? Plural? Wow. I am behind the times.

Different measuring units - currency rather than time.

I suspect you're ahead of your time.

[Pickles]

So, I know where this I think this exercise is going. KC is smaller than us so we must be pocketing lots of profit which leads to the inevitable PGA sucks.

We are also basically the same payroll as the Chicago White Sox at this point who has a much larger market.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/chicago-white-sox/

My point is that It just isn't simple to understand market. Looking at just population / media numbers isn't anything better than a SWAG.

I have theories on why KC should be able to afford a higher payroll than you'd think based on population alone, but they are just theories and I don't feel like getting accused of being a PGA defender for the millionth time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's only an observation.

If you think the O's spend as much as they can/should/etc. you're entitled to that opinion.

[weams]

MD's the wealthiest state in the Nation too.

And you can mock it, but if MASN isn't extremely profitable something's terribly wrong.

Something is terribly wrong. That we can agree.

[weams]

It's only an observation.

If you think the O's spend as much as they can/should/etc. you're entitled to that opinion.

And should you think there is a cash fund, you are entitled to that. All 30 owners are very rich men. Maybe you can relate to their lives and lifestyles. I can't.

[Pickles]

And should you think there is a cash fund, you are entitled to that. All 30 owners are very rich men. Maybe you can relate to their lives and lifestyles. I can't.

If you don't think it's odd that our payroll has increased about 20% in the last 17 years, while EVERY OTHER TEAM IN MLB has seen their payroll increase at a much greater percentage, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Pickles]

If you don't think it's odd that our payroll has increased about 20% in the last 17 years, while EVERY OTHER TEAM IN MLB has seen their payroll increase at a much greater percentage, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, it isn't quite that extreme.

Since 2000 our payrolls gone from 82 mil to 110 last year. I guess this doesn't count deferments.

So it's more like 35%.

Of course, in comparison, the rest of the league's payroll is up like 200% since then.

http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

[Pickles]

My barely informed guess is that Angleos saw the payroll of the late 90s and early 00s as an overreach, that it was unsustainable and maybe not even breaking even, and that he's only allowed payroll growth recently as revenues have had a relatively big uptick.

My guess is this:

Angelos is philosophically stuck in the 90s, and sees the increase in player salaries as outrageous.

He's content to spend some money.

But it's not going to be big time deals.

And that's in no way related to the revenue of the team.

Furthermore, he views MASN as a stand alone venture, and it's profitability in no way is going to be "funneled" back into the team.

[mdbdotcom]

My barely informed guess is that Angleos saw the payroll of the late 90s and early 00s as an overreach, that it was unsustainable and maybe not even breaking even, and that he's only allowed payroll growth recently as revenues have had a relatively big uptick.

When Angelos spent big in the late '90s, the Yankees hadn't started spending as if they had no budget.

[Pickles]

When Angelos spent big in the late '90s, the Yankees hadn't started spending as if they had no budget.

What about the Giants? The Red Sox? The Phillies? The Blue Jays? The Mariners? The Tigers?

We've been lapped by all these teams. And more.

It isn't just the Yankees.

[weams]

Lol, yeh, nothing disingenuous about comparing payroll increases using a date prior to the Nationals arriving in DC. The Orioles' market didn't change at all when that happened.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that I think he spends it all. I don't. I can however think of a perfectly rational scenario where he may have withheld more profit than normal once his "partner" asked for 40-50M more per year from MASN and then the "independent" arbiters said it should be 20-25M more. Of course I'm not interested in demonizing people so much as assuming most intelligent people act rationally and trying to determine why they are doing what they do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe he gives a good bit away, spend foolishly on horses and racetracks and restaurants. I am certain he has taken advantage of enriching his family. I have not seen him buy a soccer team. In Liverpool.

[Pickles]

Lol, yeh, nothing disingenuous about comparing payroll increases using a date prior to the Nationals arriving in DC. The Orioles' market didn't change at all when that happened.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that I think he spends it all. I don't. I can however think of a perfectly rational scenario where he may have withheld more profit than normal once his "partner" asked for 40-50M more per year from MASN and then the "independent" arbiters said it should be 20-25M more. Of course I'm not interested in demonizing people so much as assuming most intelligent people act rationally and trying to determine why they are doing what they do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We still get the lion's share of the Nats TV market? And we own a regional sports network now that runs from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. That wasn't in place in 2000.

I'm not interested in demonizing him. I'll gladly applaud him for his civic ventures in Baltimore. But I don't think it's assuming irrationality to think he's profiting financially, greatly. In fact, that seems like a pretty rational thing to do.