rferry

It's kind of pointless to draw too much of a conclusion from these financials - at a baseline I have trouble how anyone can state that they are doing well financially Also, one thing I noticed above that definitely needs to be restated is that accumulated deficit =/= total debt Deficits do go into total debt though

Isnt there still some contention that a large portion, if not most(and if not all) of the debt is from the previous ownership of Montreal? That would seem unlikely. Only way to know is to see past year's statements. We can attempt to estimate the P/L figures. Forbes has already made their own estimates and show significant losses from the 2002-07 Marlins. An easy to back into the profit/loss figures is to pick a few variables to change and assume everything else has remained equal. In 2009 and 2008 the net income was $3.9 and $29.4 million. Average that out to $16.7 million. Let's change one variable. One we know that revenue sharing was not always on average $46 million per year. The Marlins received an average of $21 million in 2002 and 2003. (See http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=1803536) Let's assume that revenue sharing was closer to $21M than $46M during the pre-2008 period. (A fair assumption considering that 2008 marks the year the Expos/Nats went from payee to payor and the first year the Yankees and Mets went back to full payors after being allowed to use their contributions towards their new stadiums.) Therefore, in the prior periods we now assume not a $16.7 million profit that 2008-9 might suggest for the prior periods, but a $8.3 million loss. (16.7 - (46-21)) Now let's change another variable on top of that. In 2008 and 2009 the media reported an "Opening Day payroll" of $22 and $35 million for an average of $29 million. Between 2002 and 2007 the average was $39 million (2007: 30.5, 2006: 15, 2005: 60.5, 2004: 42, 2003: 45, 2002: 42 according to Cots' Contracts. USA Today has similar, if not higher, numbers. (See http://content.usato...ts.aspx?team=20)). So we adjust our profits down $10 million from a $8.3 million loss to a $18.3 million loss. (16.7 - (46-21) - (39-29)) Again this is a simplified analysis. However, one that's necessary if one hopes to extrapolate anything from the data about the prior years. These two variables are the only things we adjust for. Not attendance, not stadium design costs, not amateur player bonuses, not ticket prices, not anything else. So after changing just 2 of the variables we can estimate that for the 6 years there were losses of $18.3 million each year. 6 years of $18.3 million losses equals $109.8 million of debt entering into the 2008 season. That's $109.8 million of Marlins-era debt. $76.4 million when you add back in the 2008 and 2009 profits. Is it then unreasonable to think that all or most of the $61 million debt came from Loria's investments in the Marlins? Forbes' estimates didn't think so either (and their system is a bit more complicated).

The idea that Revenue sharing cannot be used to pay down debt is asinine. Money is fungible, if the team pays down debt at all, the argument could be made that revenue sharing money is used for it. This is a problem in non-profit and government contracting. It's solved by applying necessary matching funds. States and municipalities call them by another term: un(der)funded mandates.

Meh, don't read much into this statement. The team has always twisted things around to make themselves sound better rather than admit some misdeeds, as they should. Loria likes to make a profit, and sometimes I believe, like many other have speculated for years, that Loria pockets some of the money made. The financial records in no way shows that Loria actually pocketed the money, but it can somewhat be assumed based on Loria's character and history. I don't claim to be an expert on this matter, this is simply an opinion of mine. You understand the financial reports would have been checked by a CPA, right? That the CPA would have to assure that expenses Double Play met the criteria for management fees? For Loria to somehow pocket the money without a paper trail would mean he'd have to defraud the CPA too. Kind of makes your claim seem ridiculous.

Some pitchers come back from Tommy John with even more speed on their fastballs. Can you even imagine if that happened with Strasburg?

You may have heard that the Marlins dug up the home plate and sent it to Roy Halladay to commemorate his perfect game. You may have also heard that the home plate has just been lying around in a box in his Philadelphia residence. Three months and many opportunities to have it framed or sent to his main home in Florida, he let it languish in a box. Finally the home plate receives a proper home. Roy Halladay regifted it to his catcher Carlos Ruiz. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100826&content_id=13950574&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb First, Halladay was presented with an original work by artist Dick Perez -- copies of the work were handed out to all fans in attendance. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter gave the veteran righty a Proclamation and a replica of the Liberty Bell for making a difference in Philadelphia. Manager Charlie Manuel handed Halladay the lineup card from the perfect game and general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. gave him his game-worn jersey in a customized frame. At this point, the Phillies included Halladay's family in the afternoon as team president David Montgomery presented Halladay's wife, Brandy, with a pendant with a design that matched the ring her husband would receive moments later. Halladay's children Braden, 10, and Ryan, 5, each received a sculpture of their father's hand holding game balls from the perfect game. Halladay then took a moment to acknowledge batterymate Carlos Ruiz as he gave the catcher home plate from Sun Life Stadium and a one-of-a-kind ring that was engraved "We Did it Together."

They wound up with the Marlins in a shady deal where John Henry was awarded the Red Sox. In return for the Marlins, MLB and Loria tried to illegally devalue the Expos franchise and contract it and the Twins. Loria got the Marlins for a pretty significant discount by playing along with MLB's plan for the Expos. Your charge was the same as the minority owners who took Loria to court. Loria won the case and the judge ripped into the claims of the minority owners. For you to continue with that charge shows you have no respect for truth and facts, only malice.

Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement. Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale. Where'd you find the Baseball Stadium Agreement? I couldn't find the up to date version anywhere, just the original. That information, and more details of the agreement, are in the financial statements starting around Page 40 or so under note AB.

My contention is that they intend to sell the team at a substantial profit once they build the new stadium. Wouldn't the team be worth alot more with a new stadium plus the bonuses of making a profit on concessions and parking? Yes. But there's provisions that say if Loria sells the team in the first 7 years the City and County get a large portion of the profits. I don't exactly remember what the numbers are but the point is that it's not in Loria's best financial interest to sell the team once they build the stadium. I thought that was one of the issues on which Loria would not bend, and that the city eventually conceded and took it out of the contract. What I found said they agreed to it, what got dropped was that the City and County wanted money from the naming rights. Page 41. Note AB (New ballpark): Non-relocation agreement. Within 10 years, but on a sliding scale.

What happened was this: John Henry, our former owner, was fed up with his failed efforts to get the politicians to build him a new stadium. The former minority Yankee owner jumped at the chance to buy the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. But he couldn't own two teams. So MLB's solution was to have Henry sell to Loria, who had driven the Expos into the ground, then buy the Expos from Loria for MLB. A few years later (after all 29 teams operated the Expos), MLB sold the Expos franchise to an ownership group in Washington, DC. That's a little harsh. Loria was brought in in 2000. After the 1994 strike. After the fire sale. After the Olympic Stadium's roof falling apart. After the government rebuffed requests for a new stadium. After attendance and local support had tanked. After the former owners had discussed moving to DC. After an showcase exhibition game in DC. By all accounts Loria was brought in to save the team. An owner willingly to invest in a franchise whose city, fans and even owners had given up on. He then proceeded to make investments in the franchise that were not met by the minority owners (like I said, they had given up on the franchise). Through a series of cash calls to reclaim his investments he won overwhelming control of the franchise. However, it would appear that the minority owners had no intent to bring him as a savior, but only as the fall guy for their own disinterest in the team.

I just started law school so I gather at some point Ill be hearing about all this. But just based on the statements and the general idea ive got from this thread that they did make money around 50 million the last two years and yet are still in the red (61 million) i think that much of the debt they have was from the Expo days. if that wasnt the case ud hear Samson all over the radio telling us how they are still in the red as an organization and what not. The only thing Ive heard from him is that they were saving the money to put towards the stadium. If he hasnt made that argument yet (and maybe I havent heard it) then judged by their actions much of this debt was carryover from the Expo days. and they fear other documents proving this might come out and theyd look even worse for using the aforementioned argument. But again I trust in the CPAs and the accounting majors on here who know what they are doing. Id LOVE to see the report for the year we had an 18 or whatever million dollar payroll. And the whole thing also makes baseball look bad if they dumped an ownership saddled in debt on us because we didnt give them a new stadium. Plus Id love to see this taken to court. If youre gonna take 500 million dollars in public money, the public has a right to know what ur finances look like. I think that's a ridiculous statement. The statements suggest that the Marlins wouldn't have turned a profit throughout their history. The same poor attendance, below-average prices, below-average media rights contracts existed, but with larger payrolls and seemingly lower revenue sharing receipts. To somehow suggest that 2002-2007 were profitable as well would be an unreasonable deduction to make, and that is essentially what you're suggesting by saying that the debt belongs to the Expos years. Also, MLB saddling us with an owner in debt because our stadium problems? That's rich. Rather, it was Loria that was saddled with a profit-sucking franchise. Same with MLB, they weren't saddled with Loria, they were saddled with a franchise so poor that its revenue sharing made up 33-34% of their entire revenues. It's not a coincidence that the Marlins were among the rumored contraction franchises or that pundits had proposed we become the Expos II.

Since financials are so hard to understand even with a degree in the field, how one interprets a report like this is going to be heavily influenced by any bias coming in Actually financial statements like these are designed to be understood by the common person that invests the appropriate time to read, understand and compare them. And when a CPA validates them you can be certain that they're prepared in respect to the industry guidelines. Sure you gain better insight with the more information you have (which is why insider trading is frowned upon.) However, it should be little problem for the common person to check their bias and get to the facts. In fact, that's exactly what financial statements are intended for. Placing all companies against an equal measuring stick to present just the facts. You don't have to be anti or pro-Loria to see that these statements prove the Marlins' past statements. The local revenues suck, they incurred lots of debt, took huge yearly losses, have used recent profits to pay down debt and invested heavily into the stadium. That's the facts as revealed by the statement. Now what you get is some ridiculous standards some fans have. "They should be okay with losing money" "They should invest more out of their own pocket books" "Another owner would have done it" "I expect all my $7 sodas to pay for Miguel Cabrera's salary." In reality, those $7 sodas sum up to close to nothing net. Revenue sharing receipts were responsible for an astonishing 33-34% of the team's revenues! The team is practically on welfare. That "true profit" of $5 and $29 million in 2009 and 2008 would have been losses of $39 and $19 million without the revenue sharing checks. That's shocking.

I can't help but say we've had this conversation before when the Forbes' *estimates* came out showing a similar trend: losses every year going back in 2001 and earlier followed by a huge profits recently. Many posters and bloggers ran with the latter, forgetting the former (even when they summed up to nearly 0) to characterize the ownership, franchise and market in a bad light. Now we see the real numbers, and some of the same people doing the same stupid thing. Nonetheless I'll give them credit somewhere: the market appears much worse than expected. Concessions, parking are terrible - we know that. But the amount the team relies on revenue sharing (average $s46 million a year) is huge and among the biggest source of alleviating the Marlins' poor local revenues and substantial debts. Now here's the thing: we know that's improving with the new stadium. How much though? And more local revenues means a lower ranking in revenue sharing. One will go up some, the other down by not so much so. What may not is the ridiculously low media rights contracts. The Marlins revs are very low in comparison to the Pirates

New York Mets - Johan Santana Does not count. He was acquired in a pre-arranged deal to trade him elsewhere all within a day's worth of transactions. We wanted and got Camp, who was considered a better prospect. It's like saying Anfernee Hardaway is a former Golden State Warrior. Now maybe I could hear an argument for Camp's significance on the Twins' organization or Chris Webber on the Magic. But the same argument can not be made for the Marlins and Santana or Warriors and Hardaway.

You dont bunt with your biggest run producer in that situation,,,as much I believe Fredi is a subpar manager i believe he had to let Ramirez hit away but do you understand my point? Chances of manufacturing a run helped by a Ramirez bunt are about equal to the chance Hanley could have won the game right then.

2009 has a better bench And the lineup isn't too far behind. Remember we had the 678 black hole in Encarnacion, Alex and Hollandsworth most of the year. 2003: 4.64 runs vs. a 4.61 league average. .754 OPS vs. 749 lg. avg, 2009: 4.66 vs. 4.45, .742 vs. 740

My mind changes all the time, but I think this would be a good blueprint. Hasn't the front office shown more of a willingness to rely on rookie pitchers than rookie batters. Think your estimate of 4.5 rookie batters is rather generous. Expect them to keep atleast one of Ross/Hermida/Uggla and piecemeal the bullpen I know the situation is a bit different but we did have 6 rookies in our opening day lineup a few seasons ago. That said, I believe that lineup only has 2 rookies and 1 rookie-like player in Maybin. I don't think Carroll will be a starter next year though and I'd expect us to keep 1 of Hermida/Cody/Uggla as well. I was counting Sanchez as a rookie with Maybin, and Couglan as the rookie-like player

My mind changes all the time, but I think this would be a good blueprint. Hasn't the front office shown more of a willingness to rely on rookie pitchers than rookie batters. Think your estimate of 4.5 rookie batters is rather generous. Expect them to keep atleast one of Ross/Hermida/Uggla and piecemeal the bullpen

Hasn't Perez and Dawson often sat in when one of our coaches leaves for family emergencies?

The memory of those teams has lowered my expectations for what Beinfest will be able to do with this current crop of talent. Really? From 2004-6, I've learned not to trust my expectations so much.

Choi, Murphy and Penny for LoDuca, Mota and Encarnacion- I don't think anyone bemoaned the loss of Choi. Penny's had a pretty decent career, but Mota anchored our bullpen for the stretch run that ultimately fizzled. The only trade this team has made that I can say was a complete dud was the D-Lee trade. Disagree on both. D-Lee was a candidate to be non-tendered. Do you know what that means? Despite holding the rights to him, we were unwilling or unable to pay him what he'd earn in arbitration. Meaning we would have had to release him or trade him. The league knew this. The papers at the time were wondering how we could afford to keep the championship team together, or even a fraction of it, and still fill out the roster to be competitive. The assumption was only Lee or Castillo could be re-signed. We didn't trade Lee away for Choi. We got Choi for something we barely owned. And Choi was at least serviceable, actually posting a .882 OPS and rare lefthanded power for us. Decent haul for essentially nothing, no? And I'm surprised you can look back at the Penny-LoDuca trade positively. It's true that Choi never hit .882 again and that Penny got injured. However, Mota did not by any means stabilize our bullpen. He had a 4.81 ERA and blew 4 games in the second half. Encarnacion hit worse than the typical AAAA outfielder (.702 OPS) and LoDuca went into his usual second half slump to help tank the offense. Not only did we miss an opportunity to get a good player (or at least a set of complimentary parts better suited for that year's playoff run), we didn't even realize a break in salaries. Mota and Encarnacion each were given million dollar raises, and LoDuca a big raise in a long-term deal. Along with Lowell and Leiter, they formed the nucleus of the overpaid mediocre veteran team of 2005.

There wasn't any way the Hammer was going to be signed this year. at the very least we have our new Alfredo locked up for a few years. Exactly. We didn't trade away Willingham. Willingham, like Lee, Pierre and others, were essentially already gone. The Marlins merely traded their contractual rights, not to receive equal talent, but to supplement our organization. The other 29 teams have one draft pick per round and a few free agent signees per year. There's only two ways to gain an edge: get better players (by scouting better or paying more) or get more players that may be average or above-average (by trading for them). The Marlins can't afford to pay more, but they're willing to risk negative attention by trading established players. Bonifacio will never be Willingham, but if Bonifacio turns out to be better than the other 29 team's Amezaga-type, then we've created an advantage for ourselves.

I love how everyone mentions the mistakes...what about the great moves this front office has made? lol seriously? What good trades has this front office ever made? I mean should we go down the list of good players we have traded away, and got back either garbage or a player who was below avarage at best? Are you even a Marlins fan? How long have you been a Marlins fan? You seem obtuse to the club's history, or even its current players. We don't trade away good players. Rather we trade away the contractual rights to good players. To say otherwise is to suggest that the players could have been retained or re-signed. In most cases, they couldn't. Such is life under Wayne Huizenga's lease. Overall, the front office has been effective in leveraging these contractual obligations to return a steady stream of average players, prospect busts and future superstars to complement the team to be continuously competitive.

My favorite [recent] Marlin is on the Nats (Willingham) and my favorite Nat is on the Marlins (Johnson)

Johnson wants a two year deal---thats why Washington traded him With Dunn, Willingham, and Marrero in the mix at 1B/LF, the Nats aren't seriously considering Johnson for one year let alone two