Baseball tried to make the Home Run Derby more interesting this year by allowing the 2009 (Prince Fielder) and 2010 (David Ortiz) Derby winners to pick their respective league representatives in what is supposed to be a showcase of baseball's most fun batted ball -- the home run. However, if I were in charge, I would propose the following five changes.
1. Pitching machines. Poor Jose Bautista had the outside corner painted all night by his pitcher, and Sammy Sosa got a bellyful of cutters back in 2001. If the derby is supposed to be a showcase of massive, impressive blasts, then why not cut out the guessing game of where the pitch is going to locate across the plate, and how fast it is going to approach the plate? Let the hitters focus on one thing: hitting home runs. This will also eliminate batters taking 10 straight pitches. The only substitute for this proposal I will accept is Greg Maddux throws all the pitches.
2. Fastballs only. A big component of home run distance and propensity has to go with the speed of the ball off of the bat. The more speed, the more likely a ball is to carry farther. The slower the incoming speed of the ball, however, the more kinetic energy the batter has to supply to provide. Accordingly, change-ups tend to be harder to drive farther than fastballs. Change-ups are also less likely to get "pulled" on average than fastballs, and hence more likely to go dead center (bad for home runs) than fastballs. Plus, how many hitters have better runs values off change-ups compared to fastballs anyways? Without looking, I would have to guess few, if any, power hitters so qualify.
3. Good home run hitters only. Prince Fielder selecting teammate Rickie Weeks was a total joke. So was the selection of Matt Holliday, who is more of a line drive hitter, and whose home run total is more than 70 percent comprised of "lucky" and "just enough" home runs. Snubbed were youngsters Justin Upton, who leads the majors with four 450 foot blasts, and Mike Stanton, whose power is prolific and still developing. What about Bryce Harper, who put on his own home run showcase at Tropicana Field a couple of years ago? Where are our Russell Branyans? Our Wily Mo Penas? Our Mark Reynolds? Our Adam Dunns (OK, maybe not Adam Dunn, as U.S. Cellular's 125 home run park factor for lefties is not helping him much)? Heck, what about Ichiro Suzuki, who is the self-proclaimed king of the batting practice home run. I want to see Ichiro put his money where his mouth is.
4. "Open the roof" and play at home run happy parks. I get that the Home Run Derby is a pre-All-Star Game exhibition, but why hold it in places like PETCO Park and SafeCo Field? The next two All-Star Games/Home Run Derbies will be at Kaufmann Stadium and Citi Field, but I would move the Derbies to happier homer havens like Chicago (either park). Heck, had the roof at Chase Field been open, participants' flyballs could have gone some 10 feet further and Chase Field's surprisingly noninflationary home run park factor index have been bolstered by an extra 5 points. If the Derby was at Coors, I would demand they turn off the humidifier. Heck, I'd probably demand they turn on a dehumidifier.
5. Mandatory steroid usage. OK, so this last one is clearly a joke, but only half-halfheartedly so. Maybe metal bats could be a "legal" alternative. Remember back in the day when home runs used to routinely sail 450 feet, and only Juan Pierre/Luis Castillo could not hit 30 in a season? Ah, those were the days. Don't lie to yourself and believe that an MVP* who can't hit a 400 foot home run, let alone 20 in a season, is satisfying -- irrespective of "the under-appreciated value of defense."
*I'm referring of course to Dustin Pedroia. Interesting factoid: per Fangraphs, Pedroia's 2008 WAR total was +6.8. Jose Bautista already has +6.6 WAR through just the first half this season.
Showing posts with label You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?. Show all posts
Maybe Not Every Sport Should Play At Wrigley
I don't know anyone who would admit Wrigley Field was "comfortable" I've been to my fair share of games at Wrigley this past season and I'm not going to be a complete White Sox hater of the stadium like some of my friends that I know. But it's sure as hell historic. There's an undeniable prestige about The Friendly Confines that can't be ignored. Travelers, tourists, and baseball fans alike have flocked to see at least one game at Clark and Addison. ESPN Page Two ranks Wrigley Field as the 13th most important sports venues. They also rank seeing a Cubs game in the bleachers as the 22nd best thing a sports fan should do before they die. I'm sure there's no more Pro-Wrigley top 100 rankings because Wrigley and Wrigleyville is just an integral event and part of Sports Americana. People love Wrigley and rightfully so.
But that being said, let's stop having anything other than baseball games be played at the stadium.
In 2008 on New Year's Day, for the great Winter Classic- the Chicago Blackhawks hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Wrigley Field. Overall it was a resounding success (especially for Red Wings fan who rallied from a 0-3 deficit to win 6-3) and it has gotten many praises. But it wasn't without it's problems.
There were reports about problems with putting ice down on the field, the temperature was WAY too cold for both players and fans, and most importantly- it was hard to see the game for a lot of the fans. While I'm not going to make a joke about poles being in the way, one of the best experiences (so I've heard) is being up against the glass and having the possibility of seeing a check right in front of your face. But because Wrigley Field is not conducive (really) for a hockey rink, it was hard for a lot of people to see the game. Not only were there no people up against the glass but you could just how far away people had to sit to watch the game- even for those who got great seats if you were watching a baseball game. I bet for the people who paid an arm and a leg and through the nose for those seats lost some of the appeal of a hockey game compared to a game at the normal arena.
But, again, the Winter Classic was considered a resounded success so if you want to refute me on any points (respectfully of course) be my guest- I won't put up a fight.
But what really grinds my gears is regarding the upcoming Illinois-Northwestern game being played at Wrigley this Saturday. While I'm thrilled, because this game is at Wrigley, that my beloved Illini will receiver national attention and receiver it's sixth win to be bowl eligible (cross your fingers), it's how the game will be played that's got my slightly ticked.
On EPSN.com today, there was a story that both offenses will be playing towards the same touchdown. This is because the other touchdown will be against the right field wall and there's fear that an injury will occur.
WHAT!? This isn't a pick up game in your back yard with your family right before a Thanksgiving dinner. This isn't a game where there's that one due who's a permanent QB because you have an odd number of players. This is a college football game. This just seems absurd to me.
While I admit this is at the bottom of my list of "shit I should care about" right below the color of my bowel movements (ooo going Blue!), this still shouldn't happen. I think it's time to reevaluate other sporting events that will play at Wrigley. I understand why sports want to do it. I understand the prestige and the "OOOH" factor involved in playing at Wrigley. But at the same time, let's be realistic here. At some point the mystique factor should be outweighed by the realism factor.
But that being said, let's stop having anything other than baseball games be played at the stadium.
In 2008 on New Year's Day, for the great Winter Classic- the Chicago Blackhawks hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Wrigley Field. Overall it was a resounding success (especially for Red Wings fan who rallied from a 0-3 deficit to win 6-3) and it has gotten many praises. But it wasn't without it's problems.
There were reports about problems with putting ice down on the field, the temperature was WAY too cold for both players and fans, and most importantly- it was hard to see the game for a lot of the fans. While I'm not going to make a joke about poles being in the way, one of the best experiences (so I've heard) is being up against the glass and having the possibility of seeing a check right in front of your face. But because Wrigley Field is not conducive (really) for a hockey rink, it was hard for a lot of people to see the game. Not only were there no people up against the glass but you could just how far away people had to sit to watch the game- even for those who got great seats if you were watching a baseball game. I bet for the people who paid an arm and a leg and through the nose for those seats lost some of the appeal of a hockey game compared to a game at the normal arena.
But, again, the Winter Classic was considered a resounded success so if you want to refute me on any points (respectfully of course) be my guest- I won't put up a fight.
But what really grinds my gears is regarding the upcoming Illinois-Northwestern game being played at Wrigley this Saturday. While I'm thrilled, because this game is at Wrigley, that my beloved Illini will receiver national attention and receiver it's sixth win to be bowl eligible (cross your fingers), it's how the game will be played that's got my slightly ticked.
On EPSN.com today, there was a story that both offenses will be playing towards the same touchdown. This is because the other touchdown will be against the right field wall and there's fear that an injury will occur.
WHAT!? This isn't a pick up game in your back yard with your family right before a Thanksgiving dinner. This isn't a game where there's that one due who's a permanent QB because you have an odd number of players. This is a college football game. This just seems absurd to me.
While I admit this is at the bottom of my list of "shit I should care about" right below the color of my bowel movements (ooo going Blue!), this still shouldn't happen. I think it's time to reevaluate other sporting events that will play at Wrigley. I understand why sports want to do it. I understand the prestige and the "OOOH" factor involved in playing at Wrigley. But at the same time, let's be realistic here. At some point the mystique factor should be outweighed by the realism factor.
Quick ROY Rant
Can someone please explain to me why Steven Strasburg received no NL ROY votes? I presume it is because he "only" tossed 68 innings this season. However, that Neftali Feliz guy who won the AL ROY award only tossed 69 innings. What, is 69 the magic number all of the sudden here (hehe, I said 69)? I find this outcome quite perplexing.
According to Fangraphs' WAR system, Strasburg was worth +2.6 WAR in his limited pitching role for the Nationals this year. That extrapolates to approximately an +8.0 WAR full season. Now I realize that awards on not based on extrapolated values, but the logic of ROY voting befuddles me here on two accounts. First, Strasburg gets 0 votes, while Netali Feliz, in a mere +1.7 WAR showing, takes the AL ROY cake. Second, following the theme of voters should ignore extrapolated values, how in the hell did Buster Posey (+3.9 WAR) beat out Jason Heyward (+5.0 WAR) for the NL ROY award? And don't tell me it was because Posey was a catcher, because WAR factors in relative positions. Heyward got a -6.2 run positional adjustment off his bottom line, while Posey got a +3.5 run bump. With this extra WAR considered, Heyward was still more than a full win more valuable. In the absolute context of 5.0 versus 3.9, the 1.1 WAR differential may not seem like much. However, in terms of relative value, Heyward was 22% more valuable this season. So no matter how you argue it -- that we are not looking at extrapolated value or that we ARE looking at extrapolated value -- the voters got the NL ROY award wrong. Plain and simple, no argument to be made to the contrary.
Don't like WAR?
Heyward was also better than Posey in WPA, was more clutch (per Fangraph's leverage-indexed "Clutch" rating). Heyward's 91 walks this season is also top ten all time for a single-season for a player under age 21 (in good company with guys like A-Rod). Heyward also has better minor league numbers, better MLE numbers, better major league numbers, was a comparable defender (if we ignore position), produced more batting runs...Really, Posey only beat Heyward in K%...the power output for the two players was comparable this season and Heyward's numbers to date (and pedigree) indicate that he has the clear power upside.
Don't like WAR?
Heyward was also better than Posey in WPA, was more clutch (per Fangraph's leverage-indexed "Clutch" rating). Heyward's 91 walks this season is also top ten all time for a single-season for a player under age 21 (in good company with guys like A-Rod). Heyward also has better minor league numbers, better MLE numbers, better major league numbers, was a comparable defender (if we ignore position), produced more batting runs...Really, Posey only beat Heyward in K%...the power output for the two players was comparable this season and Heyward's numbers to date (and pedigree) indicate that he has the clear power upside.
Also, I think that AL ROY voters are too obsessed with relief pitching.
Ugh. I have a headache.
The Chicago Cubs Outrageous Ticket Price Situation
A few months ago, I compiled a chart comparing Cubs payroll and revenue to that of the MLB as a whole. I've reprinted the chart below (click to enlarge):
Since 2001, Cubs ticket prices have increased an average of 17.35% per season. The MLB average is 7.07%. That is a 245% difference; hefty inflation for a team which has not won a world series in over 100 seasons of play. Click here to see the the costs of beer, soft drinks, hot dogs, etc. by park for 2009. The 2009 report by Team Marketing, who has been tracking this data for almost a decade now, indicates that "a night at Wrigley field" tends to be the third most expensive in all of baseball, behind the Yankees and Red Sox. The margins in cost between the Cubs and Mets, the fourth most expensive team to watch at home, is quite significant too (almost twice as much as the difference between the Red Sox and Cubs).
All this considered, maybe the following news is not so shocking; I still find it so. According to ESPN and Team Marketing's 2010 data, The Chicago Cubs have the most expensive non-premium seat prices, on average, in all of baseball. According to the report,
A few weeks ago, I bought several half-price tickets on Cubs.com for the Bleacher Section to the Cubs day-after-the-home-opener-game on April 14. The cost of the ticket before taxes, handling, etc. was $25. By the time the transaction was over, the ticket prices came to about $25 a person. That's right. On a $12.50 ticket, there were about $12.50 in fees, handling charges, city taxes, etc. This is nothing short of outrageous
As Cubs fans, we should take a play out of the Network (1976 film) playbook. We're mad as hell as we're not going to take it anymore. No more cash cow, no more exploiting the fans. Cubs fans have been screwed by their owners since the Wrigley boys took over. I'm tired of watching the team squander money and raise prices.
The Cubs need to fire Hendry and find an intelligent front office guy who believes in marginal benefit analysis. A guy who knows how to evaluate WAR and maximize run differentials. We need someone who can draft and who is willing to sign guys who are not a part of "Jim Hendry's Guys" (a copyrighted term by TBO).
Of course, such a boycott would never happen. Cubs fans are too loyal/drunk/stupid/apathetic/rich to care. Still, I'm tired of watching my team lose and management think its OK. Can't The Cubs hire a Tom Tango or Dave Appleman to help with their decisions? For once, I want hope. Not the hope of luck, but the hope of the future. I want to know that everything is going towards some greater purpose.
Alas, we have Jim Hendry and a cash cow that will never stop getting fatter.
Since 2001, Cubs ticket prices have increased an average of 17.35% per season. The MLB average is 7.07%. That is a 245% difference; hefty inflation for a team which has not won a world series in over 100 seasons of play. Click here to see the the costs of beer, soft drinks, hot dogs, etc. by park for 2009. The 2009 report by Team Marketing, who has been tracking this data for almost a decade now, indicates that "a night at Wrigley field" tends to be the third most expensive in all of baseball, behind the Yankees and Red Sox. The margins in cost between the Cubs and Mets, the fourth most expensive team to watch at home, is quite significant too (almost twice as much as the difference between the Red Sox and Cubs).
All this considered, maybe the following news is not so shocking; I still find it so. According to ESPN and Team Marketing's 2010 data, The Chicago Cubs have the most expensive non-premium seat prices, on average, in all of baseball. According to the report,
The Cubs' average ticket went up 10.1 percent to $52.56 this season. The team raised prices on some seats, and was hit with a 1 percent increase in the amusement tax.The Cubs barely squeaked a .500 finish in 2010, they shipped off Milton Bradley for a few million dollars and a useless starter who should be cut, and (over)spent the majority of their offseason funds on a John Grabow extension and on such free agent fizzle signing as Xavier Nady and Marlon Byrd. The Cubs even considered giving Kevin Millar some money/playing time at some point, they were so desperate to waste money/wins. And yet, they raised the price of a ticket by 10%?? The average major league ticket costs 50% less and the White Sox, who play across town and have the fourth highest average ticket price in baseball, still charge $14 less per ticket on average.
A few weeks ago, I bought several half-price tickets on Cubs.com for the Bleacher Section to the Cubs day-after-the-home-opener-game on April 14. The cost of the ticket before taxes, handling, etc. was $25. By the time the transaction was over, the ticket prices came to about $25 a person. That's right. On a $12.50 ticket, there were about $12.50 in fees, handling charges, city taxes, etc. This is nothing short of outrageous
As Cubs fans, we should take a play out of the Network (1976 film) playbook. We're mad as hell as we're not going to take it anymore. No more cash cow, no more exploiting the fans. Cubs fans have been screwed by their owners since the Wrigley boys took over. I'm tired of watching the team squander money and raise prices.
The Cubs need to fire Hendry and find an intelligent front office guy who believes in marginal benefit analysis. A guy who knows how to evaluate WAR and maximize run differentials. We need someone who can draft and who is willing to sign guys who are not a part of "Jim Hendry's Guys" (a copyrighted term by TBO).
Of course, such a boycott would never happen. Cubs fans are too loyal/drunk/stupid/apathetic/rich to care. Still, I'm tired of watching my team lose and management think its OK. Can't The Cubs hire a Tom Tango or Dave Appleman to help with their decisions? For once, I want hope. Not the hope of luck, but the hope of the future. I want to know that everything is going towards some greater purpose.
Alas, we have Jim Hendry and a cash cow that will never stop getting fatter.
Marlins Agree To Be Less Cheap In The Future
Perhaps facing the prospect of MLB-imposed fines or Player's Union-filed grievances, the Marlins have come to an agreement to increase payroll.
You can read my extensive complaints about the cheapness that is Marlins' owner Jeff Loria here. Perhaps this saga will finally come to a positive conclusion; then I will set my sights on Mariners ownership.
You can read my extensive complaints about the cheapness that is Marlins' owner Jeff Loria here. Perhaps this saga will finally come to a positive conclusion; then I will set my sights on Mariners ownership.
The Marlins Need Matt Holliday
My disgust with Marlins owner Jeff Loria is well pronounced on this blog. The Marlins ownership is, to put it bluntly, both greedy and cheap. Yes, the Marlins have the lowest value of any MLB team and the smallest operating income to work with according to Forbes, but their revenue stream is almost identical to that of both the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Kansas City Royals. The difference? Whereas the Royals spend approximately 49% of their revenue on player salaries last season and whereas the Pirates (another black hole of spending) spent approximately 1/3 of their revenue on player salaries (to be taken with a grain of salt, as the Pirates are rebuilding and in no position to contend for even a wild card berth, unlike the Marlins), the Florida Marlins spent a measly 26.5% of their revenue on player salaries. In case you missed my calculations from earlier this week, I will share them with you again (below, click to enlarge):
The major league average payroll as a percentage of revenue has fluctuated between 45% and 54% over the past six years. Only once (2005), did the Marlins surpass the league average payroll/revenue mark. In fact, in 2006, the Marlins' payroll as a percentage of revenue was 1/4th that of the league average -- a pathetic 12.6%.
Some may make the argument that Florida is a small market team with limited resources and a great scouting department which can afford to squeeze pennies left and right. There is some credence to this argument -- that is, to the extent that the Marlins' GM, Michael Hill, has a great eye for talent. However, unlike other small market teams who spend well under the league average payroll/revenue rate (ie, the Pittsburgh Pirates), the Marlins are in a key position to contend -- not for the NL East, of course, but for the Wild Card. In terms of WAR, the Marlins were a top four NL team with respect to offense last season (+19.6 WAR). And despite the fact that their combined pitching value of +14.1 WAR ranked bottom half of the league last season, they were within 5 WAR of a top 4 spot in pitching (a gap that could be bridged with a Matt Holliday-like player (a +5.7 or higher WAR player each of the last three seasons, including his injured 2008)). Collectively, the Marlins were a +33.7 WAR team last season. That made them the sixth best NL team, behind the Dodgers (+43.3 WAR), Rockies (+42.3 WAR), Braves (+41.3 WAR), Phillies (+40.8 WAR), and Cardinals (+38.1 WAR). Next season, it looks the Cardinals will lose Joel Pinero (+4.8 WAR) and perhaps even Matt Holliday (+2.7 WAR for the Cardinals) and the Rockies will lose the value that Jason Marquis (+3.8 WAR) provided them. With a smart FA addition (specifically Holliday and perhaps a Valverde-like player), the Marlins stand in a good position to be a top four NL team next season with the right additions. As Fangraphs pointed out earlier this month, "the composition of a team’s talent and their relation to their division opponents can have a pretty significant effect on their internal marginal value of a win. A win to the Rays is significantly more valuable than a win to the Astros because of the respective effect of that win on the odds of either team making the playoffs."
In other words, the Marlins are exactly the kind of team that should be spending some money on the Free Agency market. And yet, according to Nick Cafardo's latest piece "there’s no doubt the Marlins are planning another payroll dump and Uggla would appear to be at the center of it."
Yes, Uggla is about to get a little pricey (MLBTradeRumors thinks Uggla will get a raise somewhere in the $7 million range), but he is still a +3 WAR (or more, as Uggla's 2007 and 2009 BABIPs were well below his xBABIPs) player, making him worth $13+ million in terms of free agency expenditure to replace his contributions to the team. Rather than pinching the pennies, shipping Uggla out, and relying on Bonafacio (.303 OBP, -0.4 WAR last season) and Chris Coghlan (a quality player, +2.3 WAR in limited playing time last season) to fill the hole that Uggla's departure would leave, the Marlins should instead keep Uggla, use Coghlan as well, and collectively signing both Matt Holliday and Valverde for $20-22 million, finding ways to saving some salary elsewhere (such as non-tendering Cantu) and improving the team without dismantling the farm system or disassembling a quality 25-man roster. Especially since it's essentially a crap-shoot as to who wins the World Series once the playoffs begin (at least according to BP's book Baseball Between The Numbers).
However, in the words of Cafardo, "the Marlins, who receive a ton in revenue-sharing and central-fund money, are looking to keep their profit margin high." It's a sad, sad situation. Loria is committed to pocketing every dollar and forcing others to pay his expenses. Something needs to be done about the Marlins situation before Loria ruins an already limited (in terms of revenue, not profit) franchise. They have the money to spend and they are in a situation where they really should spend it.
________
EDIT: I think Dan Szymborski said it best in his 2010 ZiPS projection for the Marlins: "The Marlins continuing to win 85-90 games relies on Beinfest and Hill continuing to spin straw into gold faster than Jeff Loria can give it away, which is a very difficult task."
The major league average payroll as a percentage of revenue has fluctuated between 45% and 54% over the past six years. Only once (2005), did the Marlins surpass the league average payroll/revenue mark. In fact, in 2006, the Marlins' payroll as a percentage of revenue was 1/4th that of the league average -- a pathetic 12.6%.
Some may make the argument that Florida is a small market team with limited resources and a great scouting department which can afford to squeeze pennies left and right. There is some credence to this argument -- that is, to the extent that the Marlins' GM, Michael Hill, has a great eye for talent. However, unlike other small market teams who spend well under the league average payroll/revenue rate (ie, the Pittsburgh Pirates), the Marlins are in a key position to contend -- not for the NL East, of course, but for the Wild Card. In terms of WAR, the Marlins were a top four NL team with respect to offense last season (+19.6 WAR). And despite the fact that their combined pitching value of +14.1 WAR ranked bottom half of the league last season, they were within 5 WAR of a top 4 spot in pitching (a gap that could be bridged with a Matt Holliday-like player (a +5.7 or higher WAR player each of the last three seasons, including his injured 2008)). Collectively, the Marlins were a +33.7 WAR team last season. That made them the sixth best NL team, behind the Dodgers (+43.3 WAR), Rockies (+42.3 WAR), Braves (+41.3 WAR), Phillies (+40.8 WAR), and Cardinals (+38.1 WAR). Next season, it looks the Cardinals will lose Joel Pinero (+4.8 WAR) and perhaps even Matt Holliday (+2.7 WAR for the Cardinals) and the Rockies will lose the value that Jason Marquis (+3.8 WAR) provided them. With a smart FA addition (specifically Holliday and perhaps a Valverde-like player), the Marlins stand in a good position to be a top four NL team next season with the right additions. As Fangraphs pointed out earlier this month, "the composition of a team’s talent and their relation to their division opponents can have a pretty significant effect on their internal marginal value of a win. A win to the Rays is significantly more valuable than a win to the Astros because of the respective effect of that win on the odds of either team making the playoffs."
In other words, the Marlins are exactly the kind of team that should be spending some money on the Free Agency market. And yet, according to Nick Cafardo's latest piece "there’s no doubt the Marlins are planning another payroll dump and Uggla would appear to be at the center of it."
Yes, Uggla is about to get a little pricey (MLBTradeRumors thinks Uggla will get a raise somewhere in the $7 million range), but he is still a +3 WAR (or more, as Uggla's 2007 and 2009 BABIPs were well below his xBABIPs) player, making him worth $13+ million in terms of free agency expenditure to replace his contributions to the team. Rather than pinching the pennies, shipping Uggla out, and relying on Bonafacio (.303 OBP, -0.4 WAR last season) and Chris Coghlan (a quality player, +2.3 WAR in limited playing time last season) to fill the hole that Uggla's departure would leave, the Marlins should instead keep Uggla, use Coghlan as well, and collectively signing both Matt Holliday and Valverde for $20-22 million, finding ways to saving some salary elsewhere (such as non-tendering Cantu) and improving the team without dismantling the farm system or disassembling a quality 25-man roster. Especially since it's essentially a crap-shoot as to who wins the World Series once the playoffs begin (at least according to BP's book Baseball Between The Numbers).
However, in the words of Cafardo, "the Marlins, who receive a ton in revenue-sharing and central-fund money, are looking to keep their profit margin high." It's a sad, sad situation. Loria is committed to pocketing every dollar and forcing others to pay his expenses. Something needs to be done about the Marlins situation before Loria ruins an already limited (in terms of revenue, not profit) franchise. They have the money to spend and they are in a situation where they really should spend it.
________
EDIT: I think Dan Szymborski said it best in his 2010 ZiPS projection for the Marlins: "The Marlins continuing to win 85-90 games relies on Beinfest and Hill continuing to spin straw into gold faster than Jeff Loria can give it away, which is a very difficult task."
The Marlins Are Cheap SOBs
As you may notice from the chart, the Marlin's payroll as a percentage of team revenue is less than 1/2 that of the rest of major league baseball. From 2004-2008, the Marlin's payroll increased from $103 million to $139 million (+35%), but the team payroll from 2005-2009 fell from $60 million to $36.8 million. Over these time frames, the Marlins' revenue averaged $127 million, while the follow season's average payroll was a mere $26 million. What's really sad is that in 2006, the Marlins' payroll was below the $15 million mark. And yet, Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria is forcing the state to subsidize the Marlin's new stadium (by threat of moving). It is outrageous that the city is being strong armed into funding approximately 75% of the $645 million it will cost to build the new stadium in Miami. By contrast, compare this data to that of the Chicago Cubs.
Thank you to TBO for reading me each team's revenue from 2003-2008. It made compiling this data one thousand times easier. It is VERY difficult to find annual revenue streams for MLB, especially before 2004. Forbes has it's calculations of revenue per team on a single page from 2003 on, but it cannot be exported into an excel sheet nor is it totaled up for the reader. Thus, though not all of this information is technically "secretive," it is so practically speaking. This kind of information is not only interesting, but someone necessary if you ask me. Teams need to be more transparent about their earnings (MLB's figures (also not totaled for each season) are always less than those of Forbes) so the fans can really understand how much they are getting raped. Only then will Major League Baseball stop abusing the wallets of the average fan.
Sources: Cot's Contracts and Forbes.com
The Marlins are REALLY cheap
The 2006 Florida Marlins' revenue stream took in $122 million. Where is that money going and why is Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria forcing the state to subsidize the Marlin's new stadium?? I'm shocked that the citizens of Florida are not more outraged that the city is funding approximately 75% of the $645 million new stadium in Miami. If the team wants to cut costs and increase profits by moving the team to a better location, they should do it on their own dime; it's called a business investment.
The New York Times article (the last link above) frames the issue particularly well:
The economic benefits could also prove illusory, analysts say, because spending at new stadiums often replaces money spent at old ones or comes at the expense of spending at theaters, restaurants and other entertainment sites.And yet, the Democrats of this country want more government. Go figure.
Eager to get the project rolling, Miami-Dade issued its bonds over the summer, when the municipal bond market was in flux. The county paid nearly a full percentage point more in interest to issue its bonds than if it had waited a few months. The Marlins agreed to buy the last $7 million of bonds that the county was unable to sell to the market.
As the recession has revealed, some conservative forecasts elsewhere proved too optimistic. In 1996, officials in Hamilton County, Ohio, expected their local sales tax revenue to grow 3 percent a year when they agreed to add a half-penny to pay for stadiums for the Cincinnati Reds and the Bengals. Instead, it has since grown 1.6 percent per year on average and fallen nearly 10 percent this year, forcing lawmakers to consider cutting the schools budget.
“Cincinnati is a smaller market, but it underscores that all these projects have risks, and Miami has to understand in the depths of this recession it may take longer to recover than people think,” said Mark Rosentraub, the author of “Major League Losers,” which examined stadium deals nationwide. Rosentraub called Miami’s agreement “reckless.”
This gallimaufry isn't just happening on the Eastern Seaboard. The Mariners pigeon-holed Seattle into building them a new stadium a decade ago and are now forcing the taxpayers to pay for essential repairs to the stadium. I guess the city is going to get the last laugh, however, as they recently approved building a strip club next door. Maybe they'll call it The Foul Pole (or Randy's Johnson).
(Check here to read the details of the Mariners contract with the city as cited in an except from King County v. Taxpayers of King County)
