rferry

I remember when the Marlins were sold to Loria and someone by the name of "expos ranchod" would constantly bash Loria for destroying teams and being the cheapest owner in basebal, most of us here told him to shut up and that we were on the right track. Oh the irony. Yeah, kind of surprising that people assumed the lies spited Expos fans used to sprout. The Expos were runed before Loria even got there. The more you defend Loria the more ignorant you look. You have been proven wrong by several people about every thing you spew. Theres only one person on the planet who even remotely agrees with you, 2003, but he is at least objective and nowhere near as blind as you are. Loria has done what hes done in two stops. It doesnt matter what the state of the Expos or the Marlins were when he acquired him, he went out of his way to put the nail in the coffin in Montreal and is conveniently holding the hammer again in south Florida, ready to strike. You're right. I should stop defending Loria from ignorant attacks such as the ones you spew every day.

I didn't suggest it so much as relate it to common business practices. Because revenue sharing allows the team to operate near bare minimum doesn't mean the club shouldn't be concerned about improving underperforming operations (i.e., stadium revenue, broadcast rights) or seek out new revenue streams (luxury boxes). They should be deftly concerned, because those underperforming segments will restrain or halt the very investments us fans desire of any financial benefit. When attendance will suck with A-Rod and Cabrera, stadium revenues will suck at full capacity and the negotiations for a new stadium offer terms little different from the present situation, self-preservation is necessary. Like I said, it's a shame there's no quick fix and every year must be played out. Because every year brings more crap.

Go Marlins

I remember when the Marlins were sold to Loria and someone by the name of "expos ranchod" would constantly bash Loria for destroying teams and being the cheapest owner in basebal, most of us here told him to shut up and that we were on the right track. Oh the irony. Yeah, kind of surprising that people assumed the lies spited Expos fans used to sprout. The Expos were runed before Loria even got there.

I highly doubt that. But, in any case, revenue sharing is part of the team's business model. You can't divorce the team from that. You can listen to Loria and Samson, or check MLB's 2001 numbers, or check Forbes' estimates. All claim the Marlins operating at a loss without revenue sharing. You can't include it to say the Marlins are profitable. They aren't. The rest of the league is. And if people stop showing up in New York and Los Angeles, that money isn't being replaced. Revenue sharing is part of the business model. Sorry. Well, according to some of you, Loria's personal assets and those of any minority owners are as well. OK, revenue sharing would be if the Marlins were playing in Miami or somewhere else. That doesn't mean an owner shouldn't be concerned one of his companies is underperforming. In business, managers tend to protect themselves from the potential loss of a major revenue source.

I hope they throw the C job at Treanor, Baker, Rabelo and a Pat Borders-esque ML FA. Sign a swingman to abuse if necessary. How Iguchi for a fill in?

And Miami is not a small market. It's a underperforming market with a financially-flawed franchise. There's a way to fix that. Unfortunetly for us, Cabrera and Willis we've got to keep playing games until it happens. Beinfest has been successful in building quality teams using his own system, not the Royals' or Athletics'. Honestly, even if he was operating with one of those two models or the Yankees', we'd still wish for more.

Economics of Baseball 101 Today's topic: The reserve clause Teams hold the rights of players for 6 fully-played years in the majors. In the first 3, they have no say over their contract. The following 3, their price is restrained (or helped) by the arbitration process. That's yet another reason why teams value holding onto young talent on their rosters - they're productive and cheap. Now, consider the Marlins, they want productivity and must be cheap. Therefore they exploit the system by trading players who get too expensive for players that can't contest their wages.

Andino isn't a bad hitter for a shortstop, but people's expectations of how shortstops should hit has changed greatly with the outbreak of young offensive shortstops. Isn't that how it should be? These are the guys he'll be competing jobs for. These are the guys he'll be measured against. Andino can be a solid SS for 1985, but it's not 1985 any more.

My friend you have the monopoly on silly when you stated you root for the Florida marlins because of the drama the organization as a business has gone through . If you dont get the connection a team has with its city and or state you really are hopeless and it is becoming harder and harder to take you seriously on any level . So what we have established is sports in your mind isnt about a connection to a communtiy isnt about tradition but is about business drama and the well being of the business as one functional cog among 30 . You really are a strange kid I can't claim to be a Lit major, but that's a compelling story line. Think of the Red Sox. They are New England's team. They are also the hard-luck team. They are the Yankees' top rival. They're also super-obsessed with themselves. Ask 100 Red Sox fans why they're fans and you'll get 100 different answers. A many of those having little to do with Boston or New England. While Boston plays a role, a similar story line could involve a team in Providence or Philadelphia or Chicago. If not for a freak chance of circumstances, the Philadelphia Athletics may still exist and Philadelphia would be known for its rapid A's fans. Everyone across the country with any connection to Philly (maybe their brother's ex-girlfriend went to Temple one semester, or their great grandmother spent summers on the South Jersey shore) would proclaim to be part of the Athletics nation. You see what I'm saying? We aren't Marlins fans because they exist in South Florida. That may be how or why we became Marlins fans (even me, I was a Dan Marino fan looking for a baseball team to follow, had I had my own hometown team or liked John Elway, maybe I wouldn't be posting here). But over time as your father no longer watches the game or your children opt for basketball or your favorite players are traded (and re-signed and traded yet again) or the team changes or as you change, the tie that initially bonds to that team is strained. The ideal freak circumstances that led to them are no longer present. This franchise is nothing like the team I grew accustomed to (okay, maybe, not so different, we do have a slugging 3Bman, a starting pitcher with a style almost as unbelievable as his ERA and don't know how to fill in half the lineup, rotation or bullpen). That team didn't have to worry about the lease. Heck, MLB is different from when 15 years ago. Yet we've stuck through them. When 1994 hit, we packed the stands in July and we're right back when they came back in 1995. I bet some of us planned to attend replacement games. For some of us, it's not merely because they still exist in South Florida, are called the Marlins or wear teal. It's because we've invested ourselves in this team for so long. We've handled this and that. We aren't going to let go. We are the Marlins every bit as Loria and its owners are. Every bit as the color teal, its name or host city is. The team has taken on a special meaning to us that transcends anything we allow it to.

As for Cabrera, multiple sources say the Marlins are committed to trading the 24-year-old slugger because they simply can't afford him. After making $7.4 million this past season, the Venezuelan native is in line to earn more than $10 million. Cabrera, like Willis, isn't eligible for free agency until after the 2009 season. Yup, baseball decision. :thumbup Baseball is a business. Sorry that you're unwilling to accept that, or any of the following: - Cabrera is too expensive to re-sign in the future (without resolution to the stadium issue, and even, then a release from other financial obligations prior to the stadium's opening) - It's worth the publicity hit to measure Cabrera's trade value against that of draft picks In measuring the trade's impact on the team, you must consider that Cabrera will not be with us beyond 2009. A lot of the players rumored project to provide good value up to and beyond 2009.

And more. Sports and its attraction of fans can not be defined. You're silly if you think South Florida holds the rights to the team's traditions and community. Heck, much of our team's community and traditions will be lost by moving into a new ballpark in South Florida, let alone a different city.

I highly doubt that. But, in any case, revenue sharing is part of the team's business model. You can't divorce the team from that. You can listen to Loria and Samson, or check MLB's 2001 numbers, or check Forbes' estimates. All claim the Marlins operating at a loss without revenue sharing. You can't include it to say the Marlins are profitable. They aren't. The rest of the league is. And if people stop showing up in New York and Los Angeles, that money isn't being replaced.

Nice try. The Marlins, MLB officials and Forbes estimates all point to the team routinely losing money if not for MLB welfare (revenue sharing).

The Marlins probably could get a line of credit easily. I'm addressing the myth that an owner's personal finances has anything to do with operations of a team. You could be Carl Pohlad or Jeffrey Loria, owning the Marlins or Yankees, assuming costs out of pocket or through credit, and you'd care if one of your companies was unprofitable.

RFerry I would disagree. If I understand your contention it's that JL would not be allowed by MLB to make an infusion of capital into the franchise if he chose. Frankly I think MLB would welcome it. I suspect though, if it had a dilutive effect on the minority shareholders they would be vehemently against it, and remember it's not just the Canadians, there are SFL investors as well. The gift to Yale (good pizza there btw) has nothing to do with the Marlins. I think MLB would be greatly concerned if such an infusion would hampen the Marlins' ability to become less dependent on revenue sharing or restrain their future sale value. However, I think MLB will not step in to overturn Loria's decision. Yet the question still remains whether it is to the team's advantage or even necessary.

Poor Spike. He's always left with remaining or missing puzzle pieces.

It's not necessarily that Loria's pockets are shallow, it's that the team's pockets are shallow. They don't earn the revenues, liquid or otherwise, to cover costs until the revenue sharing check comes in. You could be Carl Pohlad, billionaire and owner of the Twins, and if one of your companies is operating at a loss, you'll want to consider how to make it profitable. This is 2007. Baseball is big business. Owners are in it to make money, not to grant 28 cities the opportunity to watch MLB baseball. Any egalitarian spirit that ever existed went away decades ago.

Come on 03, at the very least Loria is guilty of total incompetence in PR here. At the very least. I'm not sure I've ever seen 03 criticize ownership. 03 (and rferry, for that matter), can you please provide a criticism of this ownership? Or are they perfect? Not true at all. If they were complete homers they would say something like maybe Loria wants to put his $$$ into something people will actually attend. I find both their comments (and a couple others here as well) to be thought out and probably more along the lines of truth than a bunch of kids throwing tantrums because the Marlins didn't bring in Bonds (insert any high priced name here). But I guess as long as someone isn't playing the spoiled 6 year old ("Daddy just spent alot of $$$ and didn't spend one more penny on ME") he must be totally pro ownership around here. I doubt any contribution was actually Loria taking bags of cash and handing them over. I doubt any personal contributions he has or will make to his alma mater would have gone to the Marlins just so South Florida "fans" could have better TV viewing. But common sense has no place in a thread that was solely contrived to be a Marlins ownership bashing opportunity. I disagree. True, the money he donated is probably divorced from the Marlins. Nevertheless, he has the means to make an investment that will bring a return. In other words, he simply doesn't want to make the necessary investment. I think he's wrong to cry poverty and then give away money like that. I'm sorry, as a taxpayer it infuriates me. Even if that was the case, do you think MLB would allow it? Do you think it would be a smart business decision for the owners of the Marlins? There's still so much up in the air about the market and future revenue potential for its owners to take such a large risk, especially when negotiations have shown it may not be met on the other side.

I'm implying that the costs of sending representatives to Talhassee every year, talking to the city, county and MLB every week, drafting plans, etc. for years with little to no progress and no end in sight. You think people want to jump into that situation? Not really. Maybe more than when there was no one talking about a new stadium and really no prospects of talks in sight. Fact is the value of a team is tied to its revenue sources. While the league's central revenues (and therefore 1/30th to the Marlins) have risen, the Marlins' value is restrained by its stadium situation. While Loria will get back his money and then some, the rate of return on a hundred-million investment doesn't look so hot.

Nobody is asking Loria to take on tens of millions of dollars in losses to field a good team. We are just asking that the team invest in its talent instead of pocketing tens of millions of dollars a year which in theory according to those who put the system together was supposed to be used to improve rosters. Not improve the owner's bottomline. When the team's financial backstory begins to affect the team and the sport, you will see me bitch and complain. There's absolutly nothing to suggest that Loria or any one is pocketing money. According to Forbes' estimates, which leaves much to be desired, they have average less than $2 million per year net of revenue sharing. If you look at any one of those years in a vacuum, you could make Loria look like a saint or the devil. Problem is not ownership. The problems existed with Henry. And will continue until the team is able to turn a profit. Any owner of the Marlins will 1. make sure they're costs are covered, 2. follow MLB's policy, 3. (if we're lucky) take low-risk steps to get a new stadium. There is no incentive for them to do any thing more.

I think you may have lost your head if you believe teams earn greater shares of revenue sharing by opening a new stadium. Even if that correlation were correct (it may, teams in major media markets need not the expanded suites and stadium advertising, they hold sufficient revenues), it would not pass the logic test to suggest causation. Revenue sharing is a system in which all 30 teams pay in their locally-earned revenues at similar rates. The collection is then divided among the teams, ranked 1-30 with the top paying in and the bottom receiving the most and only the bottom 15 revenue earners receiving net-positive amounts. Revenues from a new stadium would bump them higher on the list and would cause them to be less reliant on revenue sharing. I think you're forgetting that price elasticity works both ways. The reasons why local revenues drop are similarly the reasons why revenues increase. In the extreme case ($30-50 million dropped from payroll), your model may make sense. But that's just one year. The necessary costs, including the lost opportunity costs, to rebuild the club and its revenue potential would continue on for years down the road.

The franchise can be sold now for more than Loria paid, which is more than Henry paid, which is more than Huizenga paid. We're not talking chump change either. MLB is not expanding anytime soon. If another owner wants to obtain a franchise, he'd have to buy out Loria and pony up the dough. And deal with all the stress of making the team profitable. Sure, the owners can be spared a loss due to revenue sharing, but it's hard to see people banging down the door for the opportunity. Especially knowing they will be restrained by Huizenga, the fans, city, state and MLB on how they handle the critical questions of the franchise.

Come on 03, at the very least Loria is guilty of total incompetence in PR here. At the very least. I'm not sure I've ever seen 03 criticize ownership. 03 (and rferry, for that matter), can you please provide a criticism of this ownership? Or are they perfect? I disagree with 03's position on the Marlins ownership but at least he is a Florida Marlins Fan I cant say the same for RFERRY You may be Florida fan. I'm a Marlins fan.

Well, don't expect me to defend Loria, but a $20 mill contribution may not mean an outlay of cash at this time. It could be a charitable trust whereby $20 mill is contributed, Yale is named as the beneficiary when Loria goes to the big free stadium in the sky. A present value tax deduction is taken currently, but the money is controlled by Loria and a portion paid back to him annually. What is left at death will go to the named charity. We all know Loria may need a big deduction since it is possible he has large taxable income not offset by prior losses-oh blashphemy to the Loria fans. Cmon, the back end deals is a Loria specialty, but this would be a legitimate tax maneuver-can't fault him. Sorry, should not have said "can't fault him". It is his money, but it shows his committment to the Marlins while he cries poverty. As documented by people on all sides of the fence, Loria is not necessarily losing money. It is not he, but the Marlins that are crying poverty. The team is operating at a loss. They are unprofitable and unable to sustain any quality product on the field or in the marketplace of fans.