MLB.com: O’s farm system is the 4th-most improved

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think he's curious how you know what the future levels of spending would be.  Considering the change in ownership.

That's part of it.  I don't think we really have any idea what future payrolls will be in a post-pandemic world of cable-cutters, especially with league-wide attendance declines before COVID, and the ownership change.  On top of all that the Orioles have had a payroll significantly exceeding $120M three times, ever.  To me assuming a $120-150M payroll for the foreseeable future is premature, at best.

[LookinUp]

Of course it is. New CBA coming next year too.

I *think * it's still fair to assume that revenue will grow over time league wide. It's also fair to assume that local revenue will grow if the team performs significantly better and becomes significantly more interesting.

 

[BohKnowsBmore]

29 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's part of it.  I don't think we really have any idea what future payrolls will be in a post-pandemic world of cable-cutters, especially with league-wide attendance declines before COVID, and the ownership change.  On top of all that the Orioles have had a payroll significantly exceeding $120M three times, ever.  To me assuming a $120-150M payroll for the foreseeable future is premature, at best.

Important to note, though, that they were running those payrolls right before the team recently bottomed-out, then they started slashing. In an environment with payrolls increasing over time, the fact that they were nowhere near that level in-say-2003 isn't particularly instructive.

[Sports Guy]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's part of it.  I don't think we really have any idea what future payrolls will be in a post-pandemic world of cable-cutters, especially with league-wide attendance declines before COVID, and the ownership change.  On top of all that the Orioles have had a payroll significantly exceeding $120M three times, ever.  To me assuming a $120-150M payroll for the foreseeable future is premature, at best.

And those 3 years were recent and there is a lot of money pouring into the game, 2020 notwithstanding.

Im comfortable with what I said.  Not really concerned that it’s wrong.  They definitely can afford it.  Now, you never know if they will do it but as the core starts to get arb eligible and you sign a few FA, it’s pretty easy to get to those numbers.

Prior to those mid 2010s, the Orioles weren’t producing a lot of players that you would keep for arb eligible seasons.  They did then and hopefully with Elias, they will continue to do that.

I don’t think they will be Tampa and just have to trade anyone that is in arb2 or later years.  

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, weams said:

He was a Bio-Genesis guy. They excel at micro dosing. Close to game time. Showering for a while after. 

Well without evidence, nothing remains. Although he did fail a couple tests, I think. Suspended twice?

[weams]

16 hours ago, Philip said:

Well without evidence, nothing remains. Although he did fail a couple tests, I think. Suspended twice?

It was Davis who failed twice. Cruz was only caught one and there was plenty of evidence. 

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, weams said:

It was Davis who failed twice. Cruz was only caught one and there was plenty of evidence. 

Oh I don’t doubt the test results. He was with the Rangers when he failed. But he said all the right “I’m sorry” stuff and folks have let it go. If he’s been using since, He could make as much money selling the trick as he’s made hitting the ball, because no doubt he is definitely still hitting the ball.

[HowAboutThat]

20 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

20 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

And those 3 years were recent and there is a lot of money pouring into the game, 2020 notwithstanding.

There was an article just a couple of days ago saying that the TV deal is being re-negotiated and will be much smaller. I think the game really needs to rethink it self, and the idea that any player on the planet is worth $300 million is wrong.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

There was an article just a couple of days ago saying that the TV deal is being re-negotiated and will be much smaller. I think the game really needs to rethink it self, and the idea that any player on the planet is worth $300 million is wrong.

Baseball has a number of fiscal problems.  I think the biggest is the free agent system as currently constructed gives the most money to declining, older players at the expense of the young and improving.  In soccer you have 22-year-olds making $25M a year, and no one really pays 35-year-olds top salaries.  In baseball 22-year-old stars are making $550k, while 35-year-olds with a fraction of the production make ten or 20 times a much.

The revenue has to go somewhere, I think to the players is as good an answer as to the $billionaire owners.  But more equal distribution would probably be better.  Certainly it's strange and unseemly that players in the same organization are making $1000 a month and $3M a month.

And I've said for a long time that I'm wary of the combination of cord-cutting and the very old demographics of baseball's fanbase.  Revenues haven't declined yet (at least pre-pandemic) but it's hard to see that continuing.