Who will pay Burnes $400M this offseason?

[Hallas]

56 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

The team's valuation only matters at time of sale. The owner's wealth in an uncapped sport like MLB determines how much the team can spend.

Steve Cohen by any metric available has tons more millions to SPEND than Hal Steinbrenner. Steve Cohen has even operated at a deficit over 100 million before which I believe was in 2023. And most importantly he has the WILL to get into the deepest of pools when it comes to FA as he has already shown in his short time owning the Mets.

My recollection is that MLB has rules about how much debt teams are allowed to take on and how much money owners are allowed to infuse into their franchises.   They supposedly won't approve contracts if they think a contract will cause them to exceed these thresholds.

[Bemorewins]

9 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

I’d like to see a study showing that team spending is more closely correlated to owner net worth than team revenue.  There are rare instances where a team owner will subsidize spending (e.g., Cohen) but that’s the exception not the rule - and note that Cohen owns 97% of the Mets vs a much lower % for Rubinstein.  Rubinstein has already been explicit that he is not in this to lose money. 

Some owners spend and want to win (Mets, Padres, Phillies). Some are more interested in making money (Rays, Guardians, etc).

If Rubenstein is a profits based owner (has to make money year after year like JA) vs an investment style o lever (accepts some years May come with a loss or small net gain) then we (the fans) will be screwed. We will be akin to the Rays who are content with being “good”. But they are never willing to do what it takes to be good enough.

I hope Rubenstein and everyone associated with the business or the Orioles paid a lot of attention to all of the empty seats for playoff games. That is evidence of a fanbase/market place who is not fully engaged. 

The onus is on the Orioles to give people a compelling reason to come out and spend money especially in this economy. And it cannot just be hey look we have a winning team. The franchise must do more including investing in the on field product (in terms of committed dollars like every other serious franchise who is trying to win a championship).

[Bemorewins]

5 minutes ago, Hallas said:

My recollection is that MLB has rules about how much debt teams are allowed to take on and how much money owners are allowed to infuse into their franchises.   They supposedly won't approve contracts if they think a contract will cause them to exceed these thresholds.

There is NOTHING preventing the Orioles of signing any player to a serious contract. Especially considering we have signed ZERO since Chris Davis way back in what 2015? That was almost a decade ago. We have been operating in a non-serious manner for too long when it comes to the org’s on field investment. 

Teams that don’t spend don’t win World Series. Look at the last 20 years of the game. The Astros first World Series is the only team who wasn’t too half of the league who won a championship.

[Too Tall]

If someone pays Burnes 400 mil or anything close. I think there are owners out there that haven't learned anything and have more money that brains. Don't get me wrong - Burnes is a good pitcher but that's it he is a good pitcher that will turn 30 next year. I believe the calculus for paying 30ish starting pitchers of value is changing. I believe - regardless of Boras - shorter terms and higher average annuals will be in play. So to me, 4/120 isn't a stupid prediction. Guess we shall see. 

[Warehouse]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Some owners spend and want to win (Mets, Padres, Phillies). Some are more interested in making money (Rays, Guardians, etc).

If Rubenstein is a profits based owner (has to make money year after year like JA) vs an investment style o lever (accepts some years May come with a loss or small net gain) then we (the fans) will be screwed. We will be akin to the Rays who are content with being “good”. But they are never willing to do what it takes to be good enough.

I hope Rubenstein and everyone associated with the business or the Orioles paid a lot of attention to all of the empty seats for playoff games. That is evidence of a fanbase/market place who is not fully engaged. 

The onus is on the Orioles to give people a compelling reason to come out and spend money especially in this economy. And it cannot just be hey look we have a winning team. The franchise must do more including investing in the on field product (in terms of committed dollars like every other serious franchise who is trying to win a championship).

The Phillies are profitable.  The Mets and the Padres are the only two teams that have really done aggressive “deficit-spending” in pursuit of a ring in the last few years.

[Pickles]

12 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Some owners spend and want to win (Mets, Padres, Phillies). Some are more interested in making money (Rays, Guardians, etc).

If Rubenstein is a profits based owner (has to make money year after year like JA) vs an investment style o lever (accepts some years May come with a loss or small net gain) then we (the fans) will be screwed. We will be akin to the Rays who are content with being “good”. But they are never willing to do what it takes to be good enough.

I hope Rubenstein and everyone associated with the business or the Orioles paid a lot of attention to all of the empty seats for playoff games. That is evidence of a fanbase/market place who is not fully engaged. 

The onus is on the Orioles to give people a compelling reason to come out and spend money especially in this economy. And it cannot just be hey look we have a winning team. The franchise must do more including investing in the on field product (in terms of committed dollars like every other serious franchise who is trying to win a championship).

Do you honestly think attendance is driven by payroll and not winning?  B/c that is basically what you're saying, and demonstrably false.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

The Phillies are profitable.  The Mets and the Padres are the only two teams that have really done aggressive “deficit-spending” in pursuit of a ring in the last few years.

In both cases the poor health of the owner or someone close to the owner was a factor.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

In both cases the poor health of the owner or someone close to the owner was a factor.

We had an owner in poor health and all we got was the Davis contract.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Do you honestly think attendance is driven by payroll and not winning?  B/c that is basically what you're saying, and demonstrably false.

Ehhh.

You can see a significant boost in season tickets sales as a result of teams spending during the offseason.   To me that falls more under payroll than winning. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

We had an owner in poor health and all we got was the Davis contract.

In the short term it didn't work out that great for the Padres or Mets either.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ehhh.

You can see a significant boost in season tickets sales as a result of teams spending during the offseason.   To me that falls more under payroll than winning. 

Define significant.  You  can get a small sugar boost from that, sure.

It won't make up for the attendance difference in Sept. 14 between a team with 90 wins and one with 70 wins.

The only thing that drives increased attendance is consistent winning.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

In the short term it didn't work out that great for the Padres or Mets either.

FA spending rarely does.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Define significant.  You  can get a small sugar boost from that, sure.

It won't make up for the attendance difference in Sept. 14 between a team with 90 wins and one with 70 wins.

The only thing that drives increased attendance is consistent winning.

https://www.mlb.com/news/bryce-harper-deal-boosts-phillies-ticket-sales

Significant:

Quote

The Phillies sold roughly 100,000 tickets in the hours after news broke Thursday afternoon that they had agreed to a 13-year, $330 million contract with Harper. They sold roughly another 80,000 tickets Friday. Harper passed his physical Friday evening and the team announced the deal Saturday. He will be introduced at a news conference at 2 p.m. ET, which will be broadcast live on MLB Network and MLB.com.

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

https://www.mlb.com/news/bryce-harper-deal-boosts-phillies-ticket-sales

Significant:

 

So a once in a generation FA signing will sell you a couple hundred thousand tickets which will all disappear in a year if it doesn't lead to actually winning.  Like the Phillies learned as 2 years after signing Harper they saw their lowest attendance since 1997.  Like I said, a sugar boost.

Meanwhile,  the Orioles 3x their attendance in 3 years because they went from 55 wins to 90+.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

So a once in a generation FA signing will sell you a couple hundred thousand tickets which will all disappear in a year if it doesn't lead to actually winning.  Like the Phillies learned as 2 years after signing Harper they saw their lowest attendance since 1997.  Like I said, a sugar boost.

Meanwhile,  the Orioles 3x their attendance in 3 years because they went from 55 wins to 90+.

 

Hey way to acknowledge me supporting my point with evidence, and not trying to immediately push back.  That's the type of behavior that got you on me /ignore list in the first place.

There are other examples, as you well know.  The Padres for instance.

But hey, you do you and I'll go back to not bothering to read your replies.