Hate to say it but if the Marlins win it all he does have the right to say: "why should we spend money?" Ramirez being the exception of course. Thoughts?

Hate to say it but if the Marlins win it all he does have the right to say: "why should we spend money?" Ramirez being the exception of course. Thoughts?

 

The hole in that theory is that Samson will HAVE to spend money once we get into the stadium... he's been catching flak from other owners/GMs/writers for making excuses as of now. Once we get into the stadium, I foresee him saying that we'll "owe money" for stadium construction costs and such and the payroll won't balloon like some may anticipate. The comedy occurs once the stadium revenue covers all of the payroll costs and the ML revenue sharing "isn't needed"

Hate to say it but if the Marlins win it all he does have the right to say: "why should we spend money?" Ramirez being the exception of course. Thoughts?

 

The hole in that theory is that Samson will HAVE to spend money once we get into the stadium... he's been catching flak from other owners/GMs/writers for making excuses as of now. Once we get into the stadium, I foresee him saying that we'll "owe money" for stadium construction costs and such and the payroll won't balloon like some may anticipate. The comedy occurs once the stadium revenue covers all of the payroll costs and the ML revenue sharing "isn't needed"

It isn't Samson's money.

I just had to say this, but I cant belive were still in first place, lol..

 

Just are luck the other teams were losing too, imagine if we were still playing good with those teams losing, we be maybe in first place by 4 or 5 games.

The fans won't be won over by just some championship title, as proven by '03 and how attendance dropped each year. The need to spend money is to keep the peices so that the fan base will stay. Money comes from the fans attending the game, the big money involves keeping fan favorites. Its about keeping players that are good and that the fans want to come see everyday. The front office has been greedy but I dont think they will be stupid enough to stay away from that fact.

Trading away players is not an excuse they are trying to use to save money, they are using it as a way to get the stadium. NO TEAM wants a fire sale, its one of the biggest ways to lose the trust of the fan base and a major source of the team's income.

Hate to say it but if the Marlins win it all he does have the right to say: "why should we spend money?" Ramirez being the exception of course. Thoughts?

 

The hole in that theory is that Samson will HAVE to spend money once we get into the stadium... he's been catching flak from other owners/GMs/writers for making excuses as of now. Once we get into the stadium, I foresee him saying that we'll "owe money" for stadium construction costs and such and the payroll won't balloon like some may anticipate. The comedy occurs once the stadium revenue covers all of the payroll costs and the ML revenue sharing "isn't needed"

It isn't Samson's money.

 

I know you love correcting me... :fyou

 

But Samson/Loria are basically the "money" guys in the organization.... Samson was the idiot that whined about Ichiro, and Samson is the idiot that always goes and and proclaims "We don't have any money"... So, when I refer to Samson, I'm referring to his mouth and Loria's money... In a general sense, you can refer to either... like I did

Just saying, if we reach the playoffs, playoff revenue would sure be a welcome addition....

 

If we keep this low of a payroll all year and make the playoffs, playoff revenue and revenue sharing will greatly increase our money for '09 and '10, then stadium opens in '11....if we can make the playoffs, we could keep a lot more guys that we otherwise wouldn't be able to.

Samson= Designated Whiner

 

I too am afraid that they are going to make up some other excuse as to why they traded one of our guys when we are in the new stadium, or why they can't keep Player A on the team anymore do to something or other.

 

I was disappointed when the FO said basically that we shouldn't expect to see any other long-term deals this year.

The financial mechanism of the stadium deal requires among other things buying 6,000 parking spaces for every home game for 30 years at a rate beginning at about $11 per space up to about $13-14 in the later years. And finally the Marlins will start getting paid for all the eyeballs in attendance (advertising) and concessions (attendance) and merchandise (attendance) so as it has always been the Marlins will do better financially by filling their new stadium than but not doing so.

 

In today's world that requires a quality product on the field. And when they endeavor to sell 20,000 seats a night to the corporate world (that they can't at Dolphin Stadium) more pressure will be there to excel on the field. No law firm or developer or bank or other intitution that will be populating those sky boxes and luxury suites want to bring clients to watch the home town team lose 11-4 every night.

 

Any way you look at it, it's in the Marlins best interest to draw large crowds every night of the week to baseball games for the next three decades. Even for those who still harbor this misguided belief that they are greedy carpetbaggers have to understand there is more money to be made doing good than not.

 

It's really that simple.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I argued against any of that... and yeah, the following is obvious

 

Marlins at DS < Marlins at new stadium

Large Crowds > Small Crowds

"Startup" costs > Huizenga rent

 

My only issue is that with a semblance of financial stability in the future, that they will balk at signings because of those costs... And that's not wholly unreasonable... remember, we lost Cabrera and Willis, which was a big reason we had the money to sign Hanley at the present time

Well, that and fact that Hanley's contract is about half of what Cabrera signed with Detroit.

The only way to get over the profitability threshold is to drive as many people through the stadium gates as possible. You can't maximize revenue without a good product on the field. Cutting player personnel costs means less revenue.

 

The best example I can give you is newspapers. In the eighties a flock consultants descended on the newspaper industry and told them that the way to greater revenues was to stop being so "newsie" and go "soft" Lifestyle stuff, food sections, etc. People who actually read newspapers got sick of an ever drecreasing newshole and started to abandon the dailies.

 

So what did the dailies do? They laid off more newspaper reporters. The public response? Less readers (and this is before the internet). The cycle continues THEN the internet hits and you what you see today, newspapers disappearing all across the country. If they had stuck to what they did best, put the money into better reporting and new news gathering technologies they industry would be 100% healthier than it is today AND they would have been better positioned to exploit the news in a minute world we live in today.

 

With a nut as big as the Marlins will have have you have to spend on players or risk losing it all. If they fail on the field once they open they will be doomed, people will never come back. They have a chance to wipe the slate clean in South Florida and begin again. They may be evil (as some contend) but they aren't stupid.

I think the point that some people here are trying to make is that you can be competitive without spending loads of cash on ball players. To an extent this is true. The ability to identify talent is a lot more important than the ability to throw around cash. The Mets and Yankees are both very poor at identifying talent and sign the biggest names available in order to drive ticket sales. This gets them more credibility with national sports networks and as a result, more hype and more revenues. Sometimes, sadly, its less about talent and just more about name brand recognition. The Yankees might finish in last this year and will still make probably 100 times the revenue of the Marlins.

The Marlins will spend more. Will they be waving cash around like Boston and NY? I'd think no.

Samson= Designated Whiner

 

I too am afraid that they are going to make up some other excuse as to why they traded one of our guys when we are in the new stadium, or why they can't keep Player A on the team anymore do to something or other.

 

I was disappointed when the FO said basically that we shouldn't expect to see any other long-term deals this year.

really? i was extatic to hear that...there is no one else on this team who will be here by the time the new stadium opens who is worth signing to big money...

Samson= Designated Whiner

 

I too am afraid that they are going to make up some other excuse as to why they traded one of our guys when we are in the new stadium, or why they can't keep Player A on the team anymore do to something or other.

 

I was disappointed when the FO said basically that we shouldn't expect to see any other long-term deals this year.

really? i was extatic to hear that...there is no one else on this team who will be here by the time the new stadium opens who is worth signing to big money...

 

 

Please not this again, take this to the Dan Uggla - Long term contract thread... I don't want to see the redux spill over here

I look at how Seattle and San Diego, and others, teams who previously had no history of firesales, promptly jettisoned their stars soon after they started playing in a brand new stadium. And I ask myself, if there, why not here....where we do have an ownership with a checkered history. Here we have only 1 true star, and I'd be very surprised if he's here for his entire contract, unless he overexceeds his already lofty expectations. It would be hard to explain away the trading of a player hitting .350 and being a 40/40 player, or better.

.

After 1 year in the new stadium, unless they're drawing 20,000 plus REAL breathing people each game, then the numbers are not going to compute for Loria. He'll be losing his revenue sharing gold-mine, and unless the franchise can not only sell, but actually have 40,000 eyeballs and 20,000 mouths to feed, in the stands every night, expect Loria and son of Samson to go plead poverty again.

.

.

It all boils down to the crowds. If the new stadium can produce the crowds that increase the income flow from advertising, concessions, etc., then Loria IMO will pay for players. If they don't get the crowds, say goodbye. Time will tell, but hope for crowds larger than we see in the new Nats stadium.

History proves ownership will spend for a playoff push. Why not in the future?

With the new stadium, they finally get to realize the profits of their own doing. Up to this point in the franchise, there existed no incentive for the team to do anything at all.

 

Just don't expect South Florida to play host to a perennial $100M club.

I look at how Seattle and San Diego, and others, teams who previously had no history of firesales, promptly jettisoned their stars soon after they started playing in a brand new stadium. And I ask myself, if there, why not here....where we do have an ownership with a checkered history. Here we have only 1 true star, and I'd be very surprised if he's here for his entire contract, unless he overexceeds his already lofty expectations. It would be hard to explain away the trading of a player hitting .350 and being a 40/40 player, or better.

.

After 1 year in the new stadium, unless they're drawing 20,000 plus REAL breathing people each game, then the numbers are not going to compute for Loria. He'll be losing his revenue sharing gold-mine, and unless the franchise can not only sell, but actually have 40,000 eyeballs and 20,000 mouths to feed, in the stands every night, expect Loria and son of Samson to go plead poverty again.

.

.

It all boils down to the crowds. If the new stadium can produce the crowds that increase the income flow from advertising, concessions, etc., then Loria IMO will pay for players. If they don't get the crowds, say goodbye. Time will tell, but hope for crowds larger than we see in the new Nats stadium.

That's my worry. What IF attendance stays down. No owner is under any obligation to spend in that situation. Everyone loses in that scenario.

 

BTW, the Seattle and San Diego scenarios are not apt. They went big for a series of years, their core declined and needed to rebuild. It wasn't a case of bad ownership, it was an attempt to correct the mistakes of management.

Bottom line is...

 

IN Admin BEINFEST, MICHAEL HILL, & the scouting...I TRUST!

 

As for David Samson, the guy is an idiot...he's always making these bold statements, and the only one worth a damn was his prediction for our '03 season...btw, that was weird. He actually predicted exactly 91 wins, before that year started, and that's what we got.