Where is MacPhail headed this off season?

[Sports Guy]

Buster Olney brought up an interesting issue: the M's might non-tender Bedard.

Would any of you guys want to bring him back for next year (if healthy - he's having surgery next week)?

In a heartbeat...Probably could get him for a cheap 2-3 year deal...maybe 8-11 million a year.

Could be a steal.

[tywright]

In a heartbeat...Probably could get him for a cheap 2-3 year deal...maybe 8-11 million a year.

Could be a steal.

He could be a steal, but he's also a pain in the @ss.

[ChaosLex]

In a heartbeat...Probably could get him for a cheap 2-3 year deal...maybe 8-11 million a year.

Could be a steal.

Think Bedard would sign with the O's again?

[Sports Guy]

Think Bedard would sign with the O's again?

Who knows...He didn't leave with any angst.

He had success here.

Media pressure isn't bad here.

Who knows....Guess we can see how bad he wants to play for Toronto if he does get non tendered.

[nadecir]

In 1997 MASN didn't exist, MLBAM didn't exist, and the TV contracts were smaller. Baseball has revenues that have doubled or tripled since the O's led the league with a ~$75M payroll.

I've done some analysis on this question here. Yes, average revenues for major league baseball teams are up since 1997. Even the Orioles revenue is up somewhat from 1997. Every team in baseball has been aided somewhat by new revenue streams. Expenses are also up for every team also.

What has happened in the ten plus years since the mid to late 90's is that the other teams in baseball have increased their revenues much faster than the Orioles. There is a big reason why. The average team in the American League has increased their attendance by over 13% from 1997 through 2007. The Orioles? Their attendance has decreased over 41% over the same time period.

For example, in 1999, the Orioles had revenues of $124 million and the Yankees had revenues of $178 million. In 2007, the Orioles had revenues of $166 million, and the Yankees had revenues of $327 million. In the period of eight years, Orioles revenue has increased 39%, while the Yankees have increased their revenue 90%. Yankee attendance is up a little over 10% during this time period.

What has happened in the ten plus years since the mid 90' is that the other teams in baseball have increased their revenues much faster than the Orioles. A big reason why? The average team in the American League has increased their attendance by over 13% from 1997 through 2007. The Orioles? Their attendance has decreased over 41% over the same time period.

I think it would be prudent to suggest that the Orioles attendance decline has had a big effect on what the Orioles can spend on their player payroll versus what other teams can spend. The 41%+ decrease in attendance is a big factor in the declining payroll numbers.

If you're not even willing to take risks to build revenues you shouldn't be a major league owner. There are plenty of owners the O's compete with who increase payroll with less reason to believe in future revenue growth than the O's.

I imagine every owner in baseball is going to spend less on payroll with a 41% decrease in attendance over 10 years. Taking risks is one thing; having sufficient cash flow to meet obligations is another. The Orioles, like every other business on the planet, need to have sufficient cash flow to meet obligations. Unless Angelos increases the teams' debt or dips into his own personal kitty, the Orioles don't have the internally generated cash flows right now to support a team payroll that many think they can.

Safer from the "I don't want to ever risk even a short-term loss" sense. If Angelos is unwilling to risk even a short-term loss in an attempt to build a long-term winner that generates higher revenues year after year then he needs to sell immediately. He's competing with owners who build their whole business model on buying and acquiring enough talent to win regularly, and therefore bring in more money regularly.

Angelos is not much different that the other owners in the league given his revenues. In 2007, the average MLB owner spent about 47% of his revenue on team payroll. The Orioles spent about 40%. This is right where I'd expect a team with below average revenues to spend. The top revenue teams spend a higher percentage of their incremental revenues over the average on payroll, and thus have higher overall averages.

Case in point: Who are the closest three teams to the Orioles in revenue? - the Diamondbacks, the Rockies, and the Rangers. What percentage of revenue do they spent on payroll and how does it compare to the Orioles? The Diamonbacks spend 40.1% of their revenues on team payroll, the Rockies spend 40.6%, the Rangers 39.7% and the Orioles 40.5%. That's pretty darn close spending on team payroll for all four of these similar teams. There is less than a $3 million dollar difference in payroll for all four of these teams.

I don't think Angelos is being too conservative with team payroll now compared to the other owners in major league baseball.

[El Gordo]

Kind of leads one to believe that Tex is the best solution of the Yankees. Otherwise they probably have to trade Hughes for a 1B which thins out a weak spot - their starting pitching

Indeed. If the MFY's want to get younger and they should, it ssense to trade what they have in surplus, money, for a younger 1B than young pitching which you can't hve too much of even if you're the MFY's. They have enough $$$ to sign Tex, Sheets, and CC, especially if they get rid of Giambi's contract along with Abreu's. I expect them to be big bidders for Tex.

[Frobby]

What has happened in the ten plus years since the mid to late 90's is that the other teams in baseball have increased their revenues much faster than the Orioles. There is a big reason why. The average team in the American League has increased their attendance by over 13% from 1997 through 2007. The Orioles? Their attendance has decreased over 41% over the same time period.

Of course, you have to ask WHY the Orioles attendance has decreased 41% over that time period. And the answer is easy: because they have had 11 losing seasons in a row, and become virtually unwatchable in mid-August every year.

That's why there will come a time when it makes sense to increase payroll to put a winning team on the field. A winning team will lead to increased attendance, which can then fund a higher payroll.

The issue is timing. You have to spend the money at a time when it will actually help you. If you spend $90 mm+ on payroll and the team continues to lose, you will take a bath.

So that brings it all back to Andy MacPhail. It's his job to tell PA when spending significantly more on payroll will significantly improve the team, and when to tell him that increasing the payroll would largely be a waste of money.

[geschinger]

So that brings it all back to Andy MacPhail. It's his job to tell PA when spending significantly more on payroll will significantly improve the team, and when to tell him that increasing the payroll would largely be a waste of money.

Great point and one that I agree with completely. What I hope we don't see is PA deciding on which specific players to spend money on. We need those kind of decisions to be left w/MacPhail.

[ChaosLex]

I bet he would.

Source

Thanks for the link.

How crazy would it be to have Jones, Sherrill, Tillman, Butler, Mickolio, and Bedard all in the O's system next season? :laughlol:

[tywright]

Who knows...He didn't leave with any angst.

He had success here.

Media pressure isn't bad here.

Who knows....Guess we can see how bad he wants to play for Toronto if he does get non tendered.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/379526_mbok18.html

On Tuesday, Bedard and the Mariners agreed he needed to undergo exploratory surgery. On Wednesday, he talked about his painful first season in Seattle and the prospect of missing as much as half of the 2009 season.

Hip pain sent him to the disabled list in April, though just before that, he first felt pain in his shoulder. He's due to undergo surgery Sept. 26.

"The start after I hurt my hip, I felt discomfort in the last inning I pitched," Bedard said. "I know exactly when I did it. After that it got worse and worse"

Bedard last started for the Mariners on July 4, at which point he was 6-4 with a 3.67 ERA in 15 starts -- not bad, but not the performance either player or team had hoped for after Seattle dealt five players to Baltimore to obtain the hard-throwing left-hander with the nasty curve.

"I didn't say anything (at the time)," Bedard said, and "like everybody else in the game, I stopped pitching when I couldn't handle the pain. After my last start, I couldn't lift my arm."

After pitching in what seems to have been a controlled level of pain through June, he threw five innings, allowing one run and getting the win against Detroit at Safeco Field on July 4. On July 22, he had an MRI exam on his left shoulder.

"We knew what it was after the MRI -- it's a tear in the labrum and a cyst," Bedard said. "Surgery was always an option, but you want it to be the last option. You're never 100 percent sure what will happen in surgery."

Although the Mariners never seemed to get a sense that Bedard's season was over, he never pitched again. There were fits and starts, sessions throwing on flat ground and ultimately a few off a bullpen mound. But the rest and rehabilitation never worked.

"We tried rehab and it got better, but it never got good," Bedard said. "The pain was less at times, but I always felt it."

The Mariners expect that Bedard will pitch for them in 2009, but it probably won't be in the first half of the season.

"The surgery we're talking about can be six to nine months (of rehabilitation), or it can be longer," Bedard said. "To not be able to pitch, that's the most frustrating part of the whole season. To not be able to do what you love is hard."

Dr. Lewis Yocum will perform Bedard's surgery in Los Angeles. The Mariners will announce a rehab schedule after that.

"We all expect him to pitch next year, but at what point, we can't say," trainer Rick Griffin said. "We won't know until Doctor Yocum goes in and does his work."

[Sports Guy]

So, if Bedard ends up being out for the first 2-3 months of next year, chances are he will be non tendered.

So, should we know sign him to a cheap 1 year contract with an option?

[ChaosLex]

So, if Bedard ends up being out for the first 2-3 months of next year, chances are he will be non tendered.

So, should we know sign him to a cheap 1 year contract with an option?

Abso-freakin-lutely! What do we have to lose?