Bradford return

[nadecir]

If the Orioles are in the poorhouse explain this:

It doesn't add up. This is why I believe Bradford was not a salary dump, but a calculated move to make sure this team would tank.

We've heard this kind of doublespeak from the Orioles front office before. Actions (lowering the payroll this season, dumping Bradford's salary, etc.) speak much louder than words. If you believe that the Orioles are not restricted by finances, I've got some swampland to sell you.

I believe Angelos when he says:

We have a very low average ticket price. The Boston Red Sox tickets are over $45, ours $22. When [Fenway Park is] filled with 35,000 at $45 per and we are filled with 46,000 at $22, at the end of the day when the money is counted, that money is what ultimately determines how much one has [available] to spend on players. They are so far ahead of us, I can't do it in my head without writing on paper, but I would simplify it by saying in order for us to match what they take in [during a game] where they have a sell-out at 35,000 at $45 dollars [a ticket], we would have to have a ballpark that would hold 70,000 and sell that park out.

They are doing this day in and day out. And they are selling out and have a rabid fan base. [The] strongest baseball fans are, I think, the Boston fans. And they went 80 years and didn't win a damned thing but they were supported and they are fortunate to have that kind of fan base. Our problem has been [an inability] to generate the kind of revenue that is needed to compete in the AL East.

Well, the Orioles don't make money and the Orioles need additional funds, which are provided, to make up the difference.

The Orioles make about as much as the Rockies, Rangers and Diamondbacks now. The payrolls for these four teams are very close and I don't think that is a coincidence. Angelos is not much different than any other owner. When the team has the revenue to support it, the team spends more than other teams. When the team doesn't, it doesn't spend as much. History shows this pretty clearly. In the period 1994-2000, the Orioles had some of the highest attendance in the league, some of the highest revenue, and we were one of the biggest spending teams. As the Orioles attendance and revenue has fallen recently, so has the Orioles payroll. The data is there in black and white for all to see.

The key is to make smart decisions with a limited payroll which will lead to a winning team. With a winning team comes increased attendance, with increased attendance comes increased revenue, which allows for an even bigger payroll. I believe this scenario will play out for the Orioles.

[JTrea81]

We've heard this kind of doublespeak from the Orioles front office before. Actions (lowering the payroll this season, dumping Bradford's salary, etc.) speak much louder than words. If you believe that the Orioles are not restricted by finances, I've got some swampland to sell you.

The Orioles ate Jay Gibbons' entire contract and were again in the top 10 teams in spending for the draft.

The only reason the payroll was lowered this season was because they were able to clear Tejada's contract off the books and the Tejada trade wasn't to dump salary, rather to just dump Tejada.

Believe what you want but to think the Orioles needed 4.5 million or so of Bradford's salary to make ends meet is just ludicrous...

[DrungoHazewood]

The key is to make smart decisions with a limited payroll which will lead to a winning team. With a winning team comes increased attendance, with increased attendance comes increased revenue, which allows for an even bigger payroll. I believe this scenario will play out for the Orioles.

I used to think the same thing. But we have 11 years of hard data suggesting otherwise.

Yes, I know, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. But the odds are greatly stacked against a team trying to win with a $70M payroll in a division with $150M and $200M payrolls, not to mention a team with a $45M payroll aided by many years of #1 draft picks. Also, a fourth team run by a big cable company with very deep pockets.

[Sports Guy]

Yeh, I get all that. I was responding to Tony Soprano's stance that Angelos doesn't want to raise payroll until attendance goes back up. I don't think that is true at all.

To get more to the heart of what I think is true, investment should lead revenue but only by a bit. If investment is too much ahead of revenue, it can be catastrophic.

They have to spend the money wisely.

After we signed Miggy, we saw a 300K attendance increase....I expect that to happen if we sign Tex(or somewhere around that number)...It is up to AM to continue to further that attendance jump as the years go on.

if he doesn't do that, whether Tex is here or not is meaningless.

It still goes back to decision making.

[Frobby]

Its difficult to argue about how much Angelos spends, when we really don't have a good grasp on what he makes from the Orioles and MASN and what his non-payroll costs are. The limited information that is public (such as what Forbes publishes) really isn't very enlightening.

That said, I think Jon's "death spiral" point is pretty compelling. Attendance in 2008 was barely half of what it was in 1997. That's because all the losing is methodically killing off fan interest. Spending some money to reverse the trend is not a bad strategy IMO. The comparison to the Rockies, Rangers and Diamondbacks is not very apt, because those teams haven't seen a conitnuous downward spiral for a decade as we have.

[Sports Guy]

Its difficult to argue about how much Angelos spends, when we really don't have a good grasp on what he makes from the Orioles and MASN and what his non-payroll costs are. The limited information that is public (such as what Forbes publishes) really isn't very enlightening.

That said, I think Jon's "death spiral" point is pretty compelling. Attendance in 2008 was barely half of what it was in 1997. That's because all the losing is methodically killing off fan interest. Spending some money to reverse the trend is not a bad strategy IMO. The comparison to the Rockies, Rangers and Diamondbacks is not very apt, because those teams haven't seen a conitnuous downward spiral for a decade as we have.

To me, the one that is important and not mentioned often is that he is guaranteed a certain amount when he sells the team...he could probably lose 5 million a year for the next 10 years, sell the team and still make well over 100 million on his original investment.

[nadecir]

I used to think the same thing. But we have 11 years of hard data suggesting otherwise.

Yes, I know, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. But the odds are greatly stacked against a team trying to win with a $70M payroll in a division with $150M and $200M payrolls, not to mention a team with a $45M payroll aided by many years of #1 draft picks. Also, a fourth team run by a big cable company with very deep pockets.

There is little doubt that its easier for a team with a large payroll to make the playoffs. But it is possible for a team with a smaller than average payroll to have a winning record. A few years of a winning record will help the Orioles in terms of attendance and revenues and give the team more payroll flexibility to get even better.

The Rockies and Diamondbacks have also seen sizable attendance declines over the past ten years. Both have been helped by having winning teams lately. Neither has dramatically increased their payroll to do it.

The Rangers have lost over 1.9 million in attendance over ten years too. There is quite a bit of similarity between these four teams (Orioles, Rockies, Rangers, Diamonbacks), both in their history and where they stand currently. All had new ballparks in the 90's with high attendance and high payrolls. Then attendance slipped considerably after a number of years to where their attendance stands now, which is much lower than a few years after their new ballparks opened. All seem to have similar revenues and payroll currently.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rockattn.shtml

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/dbacks3.shtml

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rangatte.shtml

[Frobby]

The Rockies and Diamondbacks have also seen sizable attendance declines over the past ten years. Both have been helped by having winning teams lately. Neither has dramatically increased their payroll to do it.

The Rangers have lost over 1.9 million in attendance over ten years too. There is quite a bit of similarity between these four teams (Orioles, Rockies, Rangers, Diamonbacks), both in their history and where they stand currently. All had new ballparks in the 90's with high attendance and high payrolls. Then attendance slipped considerably after a number of years to where their attendance stands now, which is much lower than a few years after their new ballparks opened. All seem to have similar revenues and payroll currently.

The Rangers have lost less than 600,000 in attendance if I'm reading this correctly. And none of these teams have been as consistently down from one year to the next as the Orioles.

By the way, I'm not impressed with Phoenix as a baseball town. I was out there in late September one year when they were in the heat of a close division race, and Schilling was scheduled to pitch. I had no trouble buying a good seat to that game on game day. I guarantee you if we ever get to a season when the O's are in the race in mid-September, you won't be finding 7-10,000 empty seats.

[wildcard]

I don't think there is a death spiral in Baltimore. Pent up demand maybe, but not a death spiral. When the O's start winning the fans will be there.

The O's have no payroll committed in 2010 and after. They can become the 2006-7 Rays for several years very easily. MacPhail has already put them on the path. Lower salaries, sell off the veterans, horde draft choices. First round picks Wieters, Matusz, Snyder and Rowell all converge on or about 2011-12. Add Nick, Jones, Tillman, Arrieta, and Reimold that is hopefully closely equal to what the Rays did with their big turnaround.

The Rays payroll will no doubt increase next year following their big turnaround. The Orioles are even in a better situation to follow that model because Baltimore as a region has a history of supporting their sports teams better than Tampa.

As for the Angelos comment on being agressive in spending money, we have seen this before. He says it before season tickets are sent out and there is some lip service with agents that ends up with the O's sign second and third tier players that NY, Boston and LA don't want. Until I see Tex or Burnett at an O's press conference announcing a new era of O's baseball, count me skeptical.

MacPhail showed us how to make big trades for younger players last winter. Something O's fans had not seen in years. I expect more of the same this winter though Roberts and Huff will not command quite as high a return.

Plan A is still in effect until further notice. Playoffs in 2012.

[Richmond Bird 9]

I have a question...Is there any possibility that we are and or can get Jeff Nieman from the Rays ??? I think it has been posted here that he is out of options and has fallen out of favor. I would be willing to add a Hyden Penn and or Rocky Cherry to make the deal.

[nadecir]

Its difficult to argue about how much Angelos spends, when we really don't have a good grasp on what he makes from the Orioles and MASN and what his non-payroll costs are. The limited information that is public (such as what Forbes publishes) really isn't very enlightening.

That said, I think Jon's "death spiral" point is pretty compelling. Attendance in 2008 was barely half of what it was in 1997. That's because all the losing is methodically killing off fan interest. Spending some money to reverse the trend is not a bad strategy IMO. The comparison to the Rockies, Rangers and Diamondbacks is not very apt, because those teams haven't seen a conitnuous downward spiral for a decade as we have.

Attendance numbers, ticket prices and payroll numbers are available and are good information. Forbes is the best information we have concerning total team revenues and expenses. It certainly cannot be 100% accurate, but it does give us a feeling of relative operating performance for all teams, and gives us more insight into a team's financial performance. Forbes obviously puts a lot of effort into this "Business of Baseball" report every year.

There does seem to be a theme that seems to be consistent with the data we have. Having a higher attendance with higher than average prices ticket usually affords a team the flexibility to have a higher payroll. It is rare that a team spends more than it's attendance indicates it should be spending.

I don't believe there is a "death spiral" as suggested. There is a downward spiral, yes, but not a death spiral. Eventually, finding good management and having higher draft picks does mean a team will get better, and that leads to an upward spiral.

The Orioles could try to spend their way out of the spiral. Angelos is not going to just hand money over to the team. He could increase the team's debt to finance an increased payroll. The Orioles would seem to be limited by major league baseball's debt limitations. This is where smaller revenues and operating income restrict the team's ability to sign expensive long-term contracts, even if ownership wanted.

And I have shown at least one instance (the Angels in 2004) where a big payroll increase worked in making the team better on the field and financially. A similar move might just work for the 2009 Orioles, who knows? Committing to a huge payroll for a number of years while at the bottom of the AL East standings would be a risky move. If the Orioles commit to a huge payroll for a long time without a corresponding revenue increase, we are looking at a pretty big problem.

By the way, every major league baseball team's valuation has increased in the past ten years. So every owner is in the same boat there. According to Forbes estimates, the Orioles have had one of the lowest valuation increases since 2001 ($319 million valuation of the Orioles in 2002, versus $341 million in 2008). Valuation increases can't help in yearly cash flow requirements to run a team.

Frobby, I was off on the Rangers attendance decline, the correct number for the Ranges attendance decline is about one million. The Rangers drew 1.9 million this year versus 2.9 million in 1998. The point still holds on the similarity between the Orioles, Rockies, Rangers, and Diamondbacks. All these teams have experienced sizable attendance declines over ten years, although none of them have been down in attendance every year.

[EddeeEddee]

I can't believe you guys actually expected something of value back for Bradford.

Who here is honestly surprised at this?

I think the real surprise is the fact thet O's would trade him just as a salary dump. Salary dumps are not characteristic of the Orioles.

[Mackus]

I expected something that would probably be around our 15-20th best prospect. We'll have to wait and see who the exact player is to find out what we're getting, but I still think it could be someone in that range, or maybe a bit worse.

I think people put way too much emphasis on the Bradford trade as a major catalyst of our late-season meltdown. Similar to how people pointed to the Trembley extension last year for that meltdown. Losing him hurt, but we wouldn't have been more than a game or two better if we had kept him, if that.

[DrungoHazewood]

I expected something that would probably be around our 15-20th best prospect. We'll have to wait and see who the exact player is to find out what we're getting, but I still think it could be someone in that range, or maybe a bit worse.

I think people put way too much emphasis on the Bradford trade as a major catalyst of our late-season meltdown. Similar to how people pointed to the Trembley extension last year for that meltdown. Losing him hurt, but we wouldn't have been more than a game or two better if we had kept him, if that.

I usually don't think a whole lot of chemistry and that kind of crap, but when you trade one of your most effective, healthy, veteran relievers for a PTBNL you've sent a pretty clear signal that the rest of the year isn't much about winning. And more than any other team in recent memory, we have some fairly convincing evidence that almost all of the players who already have 2009 jobs eased back on the accelerator somewhere around September 1st.

It's not a tremendous stretch to say the front office said "we're done" by trading Bradford for nothing and most of the players said "ok!"

[Satyr3206]

A lot of posters act like dealing Bradford was on a par withing trading Santana or Bedard. The fact is he was a good situational righty that was limited to one inning most of the time. And by saving about 7 million dollars that could help sign a starter. Seems like a good decision to me. Right now the money could be put to better use because starting pitching is a much bigger need that a reliever.