Jump to content

Cabrera frustrated?


Recommended Posts

My problem with this whole situation is that the Marlins could have dodged this bullet last year by buying out his arbitration years like 75% of the members of this forum suggested. We, a group of baseball lay-people, had better foresight on this issue than an organization of baseball professionals. These are not dumb people; they know the reality of contract negotiation. They know that more often than not, it's an embittering experience for both sides. There is a reason that the "smart" clubs do it.

 

But perhaps my pain and frustration would be somewhat mitigated if they show an ability to learn from the situtation, by offering a contract to Hanley which covers his arbitration years. Maybe it will happen, but I doubt it.

 

For all the people who were against the arbitration buy-out, arguing that arbitration benefitted small market teams and there was therefore no reason to do it, I present this situation as evidence to the contrary. It's bad for the relationship between the two parties, but more importantly its bad for public perception. And for an organization that hangs on to a fanbase by its fingernails, they cannot afford any additional smirches on its public relations practices.

THIS event would have been avoided, but it happening hardly proves the arguments of buying out his arbitration years. Nor does this event support the arguments.

 

 

 

Das, 7 billion dollars in revenue? Where are you getting that figure? MLB (2002) and Forbes (2005) report figures well less than that. At least 1/50th of 7 billion for the Marlins. Are you sure you're not talking about all 30 teams collectively?

 

 

 

Some arguments against the MARLINS (it makes perfect sense for most teams and most young stars though) signing Cabrera long-term that still haven't been answered:

- lack of incentive to motivate him

- negotiating a no-trade clause

- convincing Cabrera he wants to stay here long-term

- using an exceptional player to secure policy

- we're doing well with present policy

- the savings are irrevelant without a new stadium

 

I am talking about all of MLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this whole situation is that the Marlins could have dodged this bullet last year by buying out his arbitration years like 75% of the members of this forum suggested. We, a group of baseball lay-people, had better foresight on this issue than an organization of baseball professionals. These are not dumb people; they know the reality of contract negotiation. They know that more often than not, it's an embittering experience for both sides. There is a reason that the "smart" clubs do it.

 

But perhaps my pain and frustration would be somewhat mitigated if they show an ability to learn from the situtation, by offering a contract to Hanley which covers his arbitration years. Maybe it will happen, but I doubt it.

 

For all the people who were against the arbitration buy-out, arguing that arbitration benefitted small market teams and there was therefore no reason to do it, I present this situation as evidence to the contrary. It's bad for the relationship between the two parties, but more importantly its bad for public perception. And for an organization that hangs on to a fanbase by its fingernails, they cannot afford any additional smirches on its public relations practices.

THIS event would have been avoided, but it happening hardly proves the arguments of buying out his arbitration years. Nor does this event support the arguments.

 

 

 

Das, 7 billion dollars in revenue? Where are you getting that figure? MLB (2002) and Forbes (2005) report figures well less than that. At least 1/50th of 7 billion for the Marlins. Are you sure you're not talking about all 30 teams collectively?

 

 

 

Some arguments against the MARLINS (it makes perfect sense for most teams and most young stars though) signing Cabrera long-term that still haven't been answered:

- lack of incentive to motivate him

- negotiating a no-trade clause

- convincing Cabrera he wants to stay here long-term

- using an exceptional player to secure policy

- we're doing well with present policy

- the savings are irrevelant without a new stadium

 

I am talking about all of MLB.

I think 99% of us knew this already. It's obvious that the whole 7 Billion is not going to the Marlins. But I'm sure that you realize that RFerry considers most of us as dummies on the subject of money and baseball, or at least he expresses himself that way.

.

.

 

I do agree in general with your thoughts on the subject and our embarrasingly cheap and PR nightmare of a FO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

 

 

 

If his criticisms are directed at the Marlins, he should focus on the Marlins rather than MLB. As any one, especially those critical of MLB, knows the Marlins are in an unique position relative to the rest of the MLB teams, let alone all 30 teams together. Making such mention of the collective revenues of all 30 teams is not only misleading, it's irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

 

 

 

If his criticisms are directed at the Marlins, he should focus on the Marlins rather than MLB. As any one, especially those critical of MLB, knows the Marlins are in an unique position relative to the rest of the MLB teams, let alone all 30 teams together. Making such mention of the collective revenues of all 30 teams is not only misleading, it's irresponsible.

 

It's neither misleading nor responsible if his claim is that the Marlins get a not insignificant cut of the revenue for all of MLB. Face it, the Marlins get a substantial amount from MLB through revenue sharing, national tv contracts, merchandise sales, etc. The question is how much. If they receive a lot, like Das seems to think, then it is irresponsible and misleading for the Marlins to cry poverty.

 

Just assume that the Marlins get $60 million from MLB before selling a single ticket and signing local tv and radio deals... that puts them in a damn good position. Add local tv and radio deals and the revenue they generate through ticket sales and I guarantee you overall revenue comes in at least at $85 million. Do you really think the Marlins have costs meeting or exceeding that figure? No way, not with a payroll less than $25 million.

 

Your only argument, perhaps, is that the Marlins are in a unique position and therefore don't make as much money as other clubs. Well, that's like saying you're an investment banker in a unique position, and therefore you can't make a million dollars per year like all the other investment bankers, but you still make half a million. Cry me an f-in river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB and Forbes' figures suggest that $7 billion is the total collective revenue of MLB and its 30 teams, not national revenues. And every report suggests that the Marlins' revenues are significantly less than 1/30th of the league and its 30 teams' collective revenue.

 

And if you're even going to guess what fraction of that amount the Marlins receive, you better be thorough calculating their expenses (and this post suggests he's not) before you guess the bottom line. We've been over this plenty of times. The 25-man payroll does not make up 90% of expenses. (And we should note that given that the Marlins are using arbitration and pre-arbitration talent to restrains their payroll, without necessarily cutting supporting costs, citing their payroll understates their expenses to an even greater degree.) It hasn't in decades. Need I say that in calculating the bottom line by focusing on revenues and ignoring expenses is not only irresponsible, but ignorant as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB and Forbes' figures suggest that $7 billion is the total collective revenue of MLB and its 30 teams, not national revenues. And every report suggests that the Marlins' revenues are significantly less than 1/30th of the league and its 30 teams' collective revenue.

 

And if you're even going to guess what fraction of that amount the Marlins receive, you better be thorough calculating their expenses (and this post suggests he's not) before you guess the bottom line. We've been over this plenty of times. The 25-man payroll does not make up 90% of expenses. (And we should note that given that the Marlins are using arbitration and pre-arbitration talent to restrains their payroll, without necessarily cutting supporting costs, citing their payroll understates their expenses to an even greater degree.) It hasn't in decades. Need I say that in calculating the bottom line by focusing on revenues and ignoring expenses is not only irresponsible, but ignorant as well?

 

 

 

 

You can hose it down and wash it all up real nice and shiny RFerry but the fact remains:

 

 

YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD

 

 

 

I have a close friend who works very closely with Wayne H (Admin, Miri and Max can attest to this).

 

 

I asked him about Loria's financial situation and the stadium situation 2 weeks ago. He said the bottom line is that Loria does NOT HAVE THE COIN to be a big league owner.

 

 

It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one ever seems to do the math when someone presents a number (or alot of other things) as fact.

 

$7 billion divided by 30...hmmm that's, oh wait a minute that can't be right, $233 million per team?? Who here really thinks the Marlins came even close to that number even with revenue sharing, tv rights, etc.? Or even half that?

 

I know I don't.

 

And I don't think 2/3 of the times in MLB even came close to that number either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average MLB team brings in about $233 million. Assume the Marlins have revenues of about $85 million (which is conservative, IMO). If player salaries ($25 million in 2007) represents only 30% of total costs, do the math. That's $83.33 million in costs. That's a profit of almost $2 million.

 

If I remember correctly, Forbes estimated that the Marlins generated $119 million in revenues in 2005. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Revenues_1.html Assuming that number went down to, say, $100 million because of lower attendance, that's still $16.667 million profit in 2006.

 

The Marlins are doing alright.

 

PS: Remember that the income figures are for accounting purposes. After you write down a boatload of stuff profits go way down, when in actuality cash flow profits are extremely high.

 

Edit: By the way, just looking at the figures on Forbes I can see that the Marlins had non player salary related expenses of about $65 million.

 

So, $65 million plus $25 million in salaries means the Marlins' expenses are at about $90 million. They will make about $20 million in 2007 if the generate $110 million in revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give the board in general more credit than simply taking the 7 Billion dollar figure and dividing by 30, and then not allowing for expenses on top of that. I think the 7 Billion figure is just being used as a sign of the huge revenue stream MLB is creating these days.

.

.

The books are closed, but best estimates are the Marlins receive in the neighborhood of 80-100 Million between revenue sharing, TV deals, and merchandise sales. And they field a team with by far the lowest payroll in MLB. They are too cheap to go out and add 5-10 Million to the payroll and bring in a CF or bullpen help. If they did, they would still have the lowest payroll.

.

.

.It's embarrasingly obvious that Loria is simply making excess money to offset the slight losses he may have taken in 2003, 04, and 05. But he's doing it at the expense of the team. It's not in the team's benefit to throw out these young starting pitchers with an inadequite bullpen. Loria is entitled to make money, but he's doing the fans and the players a disservice by being cheap.

.

.

.

I agree with what The Don says. I've said it before myself. Our present ownership just doesn't have the financial resources to compete financially with other teams. Every now and then, we'll get, as we have gotten, a competitive team. But overall, we are at a disadvantage compared to the ownership groups of other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give the board in general more credit than simply taking the 7 Billion dollar figure and dividing by 30, and then not allowing for expenses on top of that. I think the 7 Billion figure is just being used as a sign of the huge revenue stream MLB is creating these days.

.

.

The books are closed, but best estimates are the Marlins receive in the neighborhood of 80-100 Million between revenue sharing, TV deals, and merchandise sales. And they field a team with by far the lowest payroll in MLB. They are too cheap to go out and add 5-10 Million to the payroll and bring in a CF or bullpen help. If they did, they would still have the lowest payroll.

.

.

.It's embarrasingly obvious that Loria is simply making excess money to offset the slight losses he may have taken in 2003, 04, and 05. But he's doing it at the expense of the team. It's not in the team's benefit to throw out these young starting pitchers with an inadequite bullpen. Loria is entitled to make money, but he's doing the fans and the players a disservice by being cheap.

.

.

.

I agree with what The Don says. I've said it before myself. Our present ownership just doesn't have the financial resources to compete financially with other teams. Every now and then, we'll get, as we have gotten, a competitive team. But overall, we are at a disadvantage compared to the ownership groups of other teams.

 

I'm on the same page. To that add the capital appreciation due to the value of the franchise going up from the original purchase price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FlummoxedLummox

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once did I suggest that there was any causal relationship between not signing Cabrera and the mess we find ourselves in now. I said this situation could have been avoided had the Marlins bought out his arbitration years. That's it. You cannot deny that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once did I suggest that there was any causal relationship between not signing Cabrera and the mess we find ourselves in now. I said this situation could have been avoided had the Marlins bought out his arbitration years. That's it. You cannot deny that.

Fine, I won't deny that. In my previous post, I didn't deny it. Obviously had we signed Cabrera long term earlier, there'd be no contract to discuss.

What I said is that it DOESN'T SUPPORT the arguments of signing Cabrera long term as you contend. Yet you said that because the two events are merely related that it supports the argument. They are related in name only. Nothing more. Nothing less. As you say, it proves nothing. I'd argue it suggests nothing either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two seperate arguments. At least I hope they're seperate because they seem to contradict eachother in every way but that Loria is a bad man. While some may seem more trusting of members here to look beyond the incidiary language thrown around by Das or delve further into financial accounts that focus exclusively on one side of the ledger, I've seen it all too often that respected members, intelligent members, members who know better throw out all reason to justify their suspicions of certain players, teams or owners. So excuse me for pointing out the obvious and challenging the arguments to expand the discussion beyond the name calling and witch hunts that occur any time Loria or Samson's name pops up in a thread.

 

As for the two arguments.. One is that the Marlins are doing well. Well, they're surviving at least. And they're benefiting from greatly increasing national revenues. But as Forbes shows, they're not doing well by _themselves_, estimating a 11.9 million loss in 2005. That shouldn't be especially shocking considering that the team was at Huizenga's stadium and the payroll. Not to mention all the other expenses hidden from the common fan's view that I've pointed out in past threads.

 

The other argument is that Loria can't be an owner. Well, he has been for a number of years. And survived. And the state of the game shows that an owner's personal wealth is inconquestial. Teams are funded by team revenues. That's how it's been for decades. Loria's worth means nothing. Just as Henry's wealth meant nothing as owner of the Marlins. Or Huizenga's wealth. Or Pohlad's wealth has meant nothing in Minnesota. Or Steinbrenner in New York. Owners don't spend their, any one else's or the team's money unless they stand to get a return on their investment.

 

I give the board in general more credit than simply taking the 7 Billion dollar figure and dividing by 30, and then not allowing for expenses on top of that. I think the 7 Billion figure is just being used as a sign of the huge revenue stream MLB is creating these days.

The books are closed, but best estimates are the Marlins receive in the neighborhood of 80-100 Million between revenue sharing, TV deals, and merchandise sales. And they field a team with by far the lowest payroll in MLB. They are too cheap to go out and add 5-10 Million to the payroll and bring in a CF or bullpen help. If they did, they would still have the lowest payroll.

.It's embarrasingly obvious that Loria is simply making excess money to offset the slight losses he may have taken in 2003, 04, and 05. But he's doing it at the expense of the team. It's not in the team's benefit to throw out these young starting pitchers with an inadequite bullpen. Loria is entitled to make money, but he's doing the fans and the players a disservice by being cheap.

I agree with what The Don says. I've said it before myself. Our present ownership just doesn't have the financial resources to compete financially with other teams. Every now and then, we'll get, as we have gotten, a competitive team. But overall, we are at a disadvantage compared to the ownership groups of other teams.

You give YOURSELF too much credit.

 

Has any owner owner had to contribute as much or more to a stadium than what has long been proposed here?

Depends on how you phrase the question. Owners of the Braves, Yankees, Mets and Giants contributed plenty to build their stadiums. But in the case of the Giants, there were other transactions with the city that favored the owner. While the infrastructure costs in New York are incredibly high for the public to pick up.

But what Loria is offering to contribute is certainly significant in raw dollar moment, percentage of costs, assumption of risks and up front funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit but I find it wrong to cry poverty with your hands out for a new taxpayer funded stadium when your making a huge profit. If I was the city, county or state I would make him open up his books before giving him a penny for a stadium. I think prinmenito's numbers are a bit off but I still think Loria will end up with a profit somewhere in the low $30 millions for the '06 season which makes his justification for the firesale and his refusal to improve the '07 team outright lies. I find that wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Where have you read that Loria is planning on using all or any part of the profits that he made last year, and will make this year, to use towards the funding of a new stadium? From what I've read, the FO that you defend claims to be breaking even or losing money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FlummoxedLummox

There are a number of benefits (the avoidance of situations like this being one of them) that when pooled together outweigh the negatives of defaulting to arbitration, in my opinoin. Clearly the Cabrera situation PROVES nothing (I never said otherwise), but I don't understand how you can even claim it doesn't SUPPORT the buy-out argument.

It does no more than saying Dontrelle being caught by the cops supports the argument of trading him last July. You're making a claim of causation when in fact the two are merely related. It does not support the argument. It wouldn't have occurred if he was re-signed.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once did I suggest that there was any causal relationship between not signing Cabrera and the mess we find ourselves in now. I said this situation could have been avoided had the Marlins bought out his arbitration years. That's it. You cannot deny that.

Fine, I won't deny that. In my previous post, I didn't deny it. Obviously had we signed Cabrera long term earlier, there'd be no contract to discuss.

What I said is that it DOESN'T SUPPORT the arguments of signing Cabrera long term as you contend. Yet you said that because the two events are merely related that it supports the argument. They are related in name only. Nothing more. Nothing less. As you say, it proves nothing. I'd argue it suggests nothing either.

And I would argue avoiding the arbitration process has intrinsic value. One of the ways that value can be attained is through buying out all of the arbitration years with one contract. Would doing so not have avoided this situation or any other advesarial situation that arises from arbitration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit but I find it wrong to cry poverty with your hands out for a new taxpayer funded stadium when your making a huge profit. If I was the city, county or state I would make him open up his books before giving him a penny for a stadium. I think prinmenito's numbers are a bit off but I still think Loria will end up with a profit somewhere in the low $30 millions for the '06 season which makes his justification for the firesale and his refusal to improve the '07 team outright lies. I find that wrong.

 

(sigh) :banghead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Where have you read that Loria is planning on using all or any part of the profits that he made last year, and will make this year, to use towards the funding of a new stadium? From what I've read, the FO that you defend claims to be breaking even or losing money.

Pierre that is how I undersyand it as well...If we were to go by the words expressed by Loria, he is almost ready to go to Camillus House for food and shelter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to check your numbers, but I would certainly hope that the Marlins profited. While it may shock some people, it's alright to profit. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't make you evil or uncaring. I would also hope those profits would go to pay their debts, making minority owners happy and towards new investments, such as planning, funding and insuring a new baseball stadium. And from what I've read, that's what they're planning on doing.

Where have you read that Loria is planning on using all or any part of the profits that he made last year, and will make this year, to use towards the funding of a new stadium? From what I've read, the FO that you defend claims to be breaking even or losing money.

 

You're more or less correct.

 

The continued diatribe is that the activities are "market conscious" and that they operate only at a point where the market could sustain them. Of course, what someone will be quick to point out is that dispersement payments such as the revenue sharing check are not truly "revenue" and as such, there is tremendous wiggle room regarding the interpretation of spending relative to the "market."

 

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the Marlins are the only team featuring a dishonest owner as no team will open their books, but it certainly is incomprehensible to suggest that any of the 30 teams last year were in dire financial straits, or for that matter, that any of the 30 teams have been in extended financial trouble since the revitalization of baseball since the 2002 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...