Jump to content

First base in 2012 and beyond


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

THANK YOU!

That is the point. When I used the Giants comp I was talking about the overall economies of the area and the reasonable salary range that they could support.

Would you agree that the Orioles over a 8-10 year period could easily sustain a payroll between 80-100 million dollars and be competitive year in year out?

Well that depends on who they sign and how the farm system is.

I have little faith in AM and PA to be able to do what is needed to be done year in and year out.

The team needs to be sold to Bisciotti and he needs to hire a real baseball man to run things.

However, in the most generic form of the question , yes I feel they can be competitive with that payroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What are the mandatory carrier fees charged by MASN and NESN? And how many households are covered by each? I've never seen anyone suggest that MASN brings in anywhere close to NESN's revenues, and I think it's a little implausible that people in Charlotte are going to pay several dollars per household per month to watch teams that are hundreds of miles further away than the Braves.

And you also have to consider that the Nats and O's divide up the MASN revenues.

I'll agree that there's big potential for MASN. But it's a long, long way from being the revenue generating machine NESN is. It's a big stretch to say the O's are capable of vastly higher payrolls right now because of MASN.

I posted something on this a week ago. The Capitals owner is frothing at the mouth to get an RSN because of the money MASN is bringing in. He's publicly stated it.

A trade publication I believe two years back stated MASN is the fastest growing in revenue RSN.

And the per month fees I think are like $2.82 for MASN subs. That is my memory talking and not a statement of certainty though.

How that compares to NESN I'm not sure. I would imagine NESN is massively more profitable than MASN still.

But that's a chicken and egg thing.

NESN is showing a product that is HBO Boardwalk Empire quality while MASN is rolling out Full House re-runs.

To assume an inferior sports product would bring in equal revenues would be incorrect so I'm not saying that. I'm saying the money and opportunity for aggressive spending to generate positive growth is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trade publication I believe two years back stated MASN is the fastest growing in revenue RSN.

That's not that hard when a year or two ago the Nats were drawing 12 viewers a game to a standard-definition broadcast featuring Rob Dibble's musings.

My son Nate is the fastest growing Wilt, but it's still likely that he'll end up standing about 5' 6".

To assume an inferior sports product would bring in equal revenues would be incorrect so I'm not saying that. I'm saying the money and opportunity for aggressive spending to generate positive growth is there.

No argument that a better product would bring more revenues, nor that there's an opportunity for growth. I won't agree that it's reasonable for a team to spend aggressively in the hopes that it'll pay off sometime down the road. That's generally not the way baseball works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not that hard when a year or two ago the Nats were drawing 12 viewers a game to a standard-definition broadcast featuring Rob Dibble's musings.

My son Nate is the fastest growing Wilt, but it's still likely that he'll end up standing about 5' 6".

No argument that a better product would bring more revenues, nor that there's an opportunity for growth. I won't agree that it's reasonable for a team to spend aggressively in the hopes that it'll pay off sometime down the road. That's generally not the way baseball works.

I think you'd agree that spending aggressively in certain facets is how baseball works.

To spend aggressively in international prospects goes from what we spend at the cheapskate end of the spectrum to maybe $4-$5 million maybe $8 million annually in a BIG year in the serious end of the spectrum.

That is a down the road type of investment.

If we can't afford to do that we shouldn't have a team. Our AL East competitors have no problem doing it. So to do that would just bring us up to average.

But we don't spend here and we close down one of our Dominican teams because we have no need for 2...Because we don't have the amount of quality players other teams do.

To spend aggressively in scouting and player development is between $35k-$110k per scout - so maybe $500k-$1 million extra there annually. Once again not too much of an investment.

So when Toronto boosted their scouts, the Rays did, Sox, Yankees, etc and MacPhail barely does anything...there are no excuses. And scouting/player development is for both "down the road" benefits as well as right now.

Draft - we pick top 5 most years now. We rarely if ever have a top 5 spend in any given year. Even last year was #6. And we were I believe #9 or #10 the year before. We spent $2.8 less than the Nationals last year who were #1 last year and a total of $4 million less than Red Sox since 2008.

So to spend aggressively in drafting is upping the budget say $2 million more to go after those true overslotters more regularly.

The counter argument to this is we didn't have a second round pick this year and never compensatory ones either. Valid points.

But the Red Sox pick in the end of the first round every year while we pick at the top where the bonuses are massively bigger. That difference makes up for compensatory picks right there. And then they outspend us everywhere else in the draft it seems.

Draft is for "down the road" too.

So these are all cheaper ways to be aggressive. We don't do any of them.

Like literally zero of them. We don't need MASN to be kicking out money all day like an ATM to afford these improvements. Why don't we have them?

To use your point about MASN growth above. MacPhail took our farm system from level zero to level 2. And then left it there. He inherited a lot of our calvary. They made it to the bigs. He made an awesome trade and then didn't put any serious money into international players or all rounds of draft budget.

So now we don't have a second influx of great players after Zach B. We have players we are personally excited for, but aren't highly regarded. Machado is far away and he's supposed to be good since he was the #3 pick. There was not even a close second choice at his draft position by all experts.

So MacPhail getting credit for bringing him in is like bragging about dunking on 4 year olds at one of those plastic basketball rims at a nursery school.

So I think we can agree that yes we can't spend aggressively ala the Yankees overall. I say we can at the level of the Red Sox. I 100% see the other side of the coin though and you may be right there.

So that's a debate still.

But I imagine we agree with absolute certainty that we can indeed spend aggressively in drafting, development, and international prospects. And that is for down the road benefits.

Now why don't we? In the grand scheme of baseball it's chump change financial commitments.

So what does Andy MacPhail know that every other serious "build from within" team doesn't? Nothing says to me he knows anything special.

And why anybody thinks Andy MacPhail knows what he's doing anymore looking at how we fall behind everybody else in these aggressive and cheaper avenues is mind-boggling to me.

I'm not saying you think he's doing a good job. That's more a general statement of MacPhail defenders.

I just think we are past the point of "hope" and now we are stuck in reality with our GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...