Finite Resources

[weams]

http://www.orioleshangout.com/2018/01/16/finite-resources/

Discuss your case here.

[Il BuonO]

There’s no money! 

[Can_of_corn]

MLBAM sell off.

86 million per team not subject to revenue sharing.

[foxfield]

Nero (PA) fiddles, while Rome burns.

[Redskins Rick]

Baseball owners are much like some politicians, spend spend spend, worry about paying for it later.

[clapdiddy]

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

You left off

5.  Don't tie up money in long term contracts for older players.

[clapdiddy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You left off

5.  Don't tie up money in long term contracts for older players.

Beautiful!   Yup...agree 100%.

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

MLBAM sell off.

86 million per team not subject to revenue sharing.

Not all in one year, right?    I think this year’s slug is $50 mm.   They got $36 mm previously.

It’s a double-edged sword, though. That money is only coming once, and it’s substituting for a dividend stream that would have come in from MLBAM year after year.    That source of revenue is gone in the future.    Presumably MLB felt the one-time payment had more economic value than the future revenue stream, probably because Disney will do a better job marketing the technology than MLB could have done on its own.   

As to “limited resources,” the percentage of MLB gross revenues devoted to payroll has been going down over time, even while average payroll has been going up.    I don’t think tight profit margins are an issue in MLB generally.    At any given time, a particular team might be extended about to its limit, though.   The O’s might be there, considering the big payroll jump they made in 2016 and sustained in 2017.    Per BB-ref:

2012: $78 mm (22nd in MLB)

2013: $101 mm (13th)

2014: $109 mm (13th)

2015: $113 mm (15th)

2016: $154 mm (10th)

2017: $162 mm (11th)

It’s plausible to me that the O’s have been “punching above their weight” the last two years trying to stay competitive, and eventually will have to slip back down the list.    Unlike some people, I don’t find it surprising that teams move up and down on this list to a degree, because willingness to spend can depend upon where a team is in its competitive cycle.    

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

They have sold off shares in three increments.  It has been tightly grouped, all of the transactions have happened in the last few years.  Keep in mind that is almost all profit as the initial outlay was very small.

No idea how much more the product is worth under the control of Disney than it would have been under MLB's control.  It is possible that the future revenue streams are not that far off since MLB will be getting a share of Disney streaming revenue.

[MDtransplant757]

I don't think that we're really qualified to talk about this, as we don't have inside access to the books for the Orioles and MASN as a whole. 

[maybenxtyr]

31 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

This is a process they should start sooner rather than later though. What they are doing right now really does not make sense. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

They have sold off shares in three increments.  It has been tightly grouped, all of the transactions have happened in the last few years.  Keep in mind that is almost all profit as the initial outlay was very small.

No idea how much more the product is worth under the control of Disney than it would have been under MLB's control.  It is possible that the future revenue streams are not that far off since MLB will be getting a share of Disney streaming revenue.

I did not know that.    Are they getting it other than through the 15% (or is it 10%?) of MLBAM that they still own?

[Bahama O's Fan]

I still think MLB needs a salary cap similar to the NFL.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I did not know that.    Are they getting it other than through the 15% (or is it 10%?) of MLBAM that they still own?

I am speaking of the 15%. Is 90% of MLB and NHL streaming greater than 15% of MLB, NHL and Disney streaming?