Dolan projects $16M loss
The last sentence shall not be ignored:
"Dolan also said ownership will have input into whether manager Eric Wedge returns next season."
Updated: Hoynsie's review of presser (HT: millionairesrow)
over 2 years ago
rolub
455 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Dolan is not unwise to attack his biggest PR problems in one swoop:
1. A perceived lack of financial risk/commitment on his part
2. The FO support for an unpopular manager
Eh, I get the feeling that there’s a lot of intelligent, and intentional, blame shifting going on here. The front office deflects blame on ownership for trading lee and vic and ownership deflects blame on the front office for Wedge.
Meanwhile both parties are coordinating together the future of the Indians.
On a positive note we’ve saved 8.1 million this year because of our trades. I assume, and hope, that the 16 mil in losses is before those trades are taken into account.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Is the FO really deflecting blame on the ownership? Aren’t they, if anything, deflecting blame onto the larger financial structure of baseball in general?
“We’re a small market team, we have to be smart with money, etc.”?
“ownership told us we wouldn’t be able to add any payroll during the offseason”
Though the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I didn’t read it as "ownership told us we wouldn’t be able to add any payroll during the offseason [because I’m Scrooge McDolan and I want to add a deep end to my pool of gold coins I dive into]."
I read it as "ownership told us we wouldn’t be able to add any payroll during the offseason [because the team is losing money and we can’t afford to go deeper into the red]."
But then, mine is, on average, a minority interpretation.
Both interpretations are still pointing the blame at ownership.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I like that he’s talking, and not hiding. I like that he’s communicating the financial situation. I like that he’s saying the post season review will go into every aspect of management, specifically citing amateur player recruiting, trades and the coaching staff.
by MTF on Aug 6, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Was this owner Larry Dolan, or team president Paul Dolan? Thanks, ESPN.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Aug 6, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions
Oops. Sorry, ESPN. I take that back, but nothing else I’ve ever said about you.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Aug 6, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
This, and not the concern for getting less talent, was the reason for the premature Lee and Martinez trades. The division is weak next year, but the Indians cannot afford to keep valuable parts as long as they cost any money.
Why are they losing so much money? Because of another poor start, and another season out of contention. So the Eric Wedge era not only cost the Indians many games (from a pythag prospective), many years of contention, and future years of contention due to the loss of talent.
and the fact that by and large, the fanbase is extremely fair weather
by Roger Dorn on Aug 6, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Damn straight! The only reason the 455 streak happened is because going to an Indians game was the “in” thing to do. Even in 2007, when they were arguably the best team in baseball they still finished 21st in attendance. Poor start or hot start, good team or bad team; either matter little. Anything short of a WS title isn’t going to cut it for drawing fans.
As for the reason they are losing money? Increasing payroll 20 million from 2007 until now, and 40 million from 2005.
going to an indians game was the “in” thing to do in late 2007, too. I’m guessing 15-30 starts every year cost you at least 100,000 seats sold every year.
So yeah, you can blame part of this on Wedge.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
Of course you would blame this on wedge if you blame everything else on him. Its kind of a self defeating assumption.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You know, I’m actually perfectly fine with that logic
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Ticket sales always lag a year behind a club’s record. Indians attendance got this bad because they have followed up their two good seasons with horrible Aprils, and the real meat of ticket sales happens in April.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
455 was the result of the most unique confluence of events in cleveland sports history…no browns, horrible cavs, a more competitive landscape in baseball, and great talent acquisition lead to the most successful run for a cleveland sports franchise since the early-60s browns. we didn’t win a WS title in the ’90s, and yet 455 still happened.
in addition to jay’s point about ticket sales lagging, 2007 also saw a world where the browns were back (doesn’t matter if they’re good or bad), baseball payrolls (outside of cleveland) soared past the $100mm mark, and the best basketball player on the planet played in cleveland and took the cavs to the finals. very different planets.
and let’s not even get into the relative cleveland economies in ’95 vs. ’07
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 7, 2009 2:55 AM EDT up reply actions
and the best basketball player on the planet played in cleveland and took the cavs to the finals.
Kobe played for the Cavs in 2007?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 7, 2009 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Really, LeBron’s better and it’s not even close. He beats Kobe is almost every single statistical category.
Like what? Leadership? Intangibles? “Clutch” ability? Is that what you mean?
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 7, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
OK, at least you admit it.
Really, though, LeBron has passed Kobe as the best player in the NBA a couple years ago. He simply dominates in more areas of the game than Kobe does. The only argument for Kobe you can make is that Kobe has 4 rings and LeBron has none, but of course Kobe has been in the league much longer so that’s not really a fair comparison.
LeBron gonna go down as the best player in NBA history not to win a championship.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
No way. He’s still really young so he has plenty of time left to win a ring. I’d guess he retires with no less than 3 titles.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 7, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Is there any reason to sign with the Knicks, other than the alleged reason that playing in New York is desirable for him? What are the other, actual reasons, if any?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think the formula is Lebron = Global Marketing Icon = New York.
There’s no sincere logical reason for him to go there. In fact, it would be a huge step back from an organization standpoint. He’s so much closer to the title in Cleveland, and would be as close with even other teams than the Knicks.
Usually, an incredible waste of pixels.
He’s not signing with New York. If you’ve listened to him talk over his career, he has constantly talked about his love for Akron and the people he grew up with. He’s a homebody at heart. He loves the attention that the flirtation with New York brings in the national media, which is why he’s not signing an extension this summer, but he’ll resign with the Cavs next year. The lower cap helps the Cavs even more because the Knicks can’t afford to sign two max players like they were trying to do.
We’ve talked about this before, but LeBron does not need to play in New York to be a global marketing icon. He’s already one of the five most popular athletes in the world — how is New York going to help him get more popular? He wants to be a global icon, and people in Europe and Asia don’t care if he’s playing in New York or Cleveland or Altoona. It’s not like Grady Sizemore, who would obviously increase his popularity and media coverage playing for the Yankees. LeBron doesn’t need New York; New York needs him.
LeBron knows his legacy will be determined by winning titles, and he’s not going to do that with the Knicks. If they could sign Wade or Bosh along with LeBron then I’d be worried, but that’s not going to happen. LeBron will stay in Cleveland because they give him the best chance to win and he likes playing and living close to Akron. Star players don’t leave in the NBA — the last time that happened was Shaq leaving Orlando for LA over 10 years ago.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 10, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
at least they could also check out the black keys in akron. in cleveland, the only other option is watching the tribe suck out loud
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 10, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
non-statistical categories
i believe we call these “jeters”
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 7, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am very interested in the role ownership will have in baseball (i.e., manager change) decisions. There is a great deal of perceived trust and freedom given to Shapiro in just about every area of baseball operations, and this is a good thing, usually. But if the bottom line numbers AND the team’s place in the standings continuously are coming up terribly short of even modest in house expectations, I believe there will be strong urge to make changes from the very top. Add in the pressure from media and vocal majority of fans, and I think, at the very least, Shapiro has to be concerned that he is going to lose some of that freedom to handle the manager decision (and others) on his own.
I think the decision to let Wedge go was made a while ago. But for reasons of both not wanting to have an interim manager and just plain old cash, they deferred the firing to the end of the year. This quote from Dolan is really just “Wedge is a goner”.
i do, too…but i think he is wrong. b/c of what’s owed to wedge.
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 7, 2009 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I think this is being vastly overstated. The choice of manager ultimately affects a lot more revenue than his salary. I think the club badly needs a new face to spearhead their winter and spring marketing. Of course there won’t be many new, exciting players on the field, but they can have a new voice.
Wedge’s salary is a sunk cost in any event. He likely would be replaced by a first-timer who would be paid something in the range of 600K. Furthermore. Wedge, if retained, would continue to make more money, upwards of $3 million for 2011-2012. A newcomer would make perhaps half of that.
In other words, if they fire Wedge and bring in a newcomer, it likely saves them money by the end of 2012.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Ya know Jay, you may have hit on something. I might make more sense – ticket sales wise – to bring in a “name” manager for $3-5M a season than a #4 starter for the same money. Interesting idea.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think any manager short of Billy Martin’s reanimated corpse could bring in 3M to 5M, but I think any new manager starts to create the impression that a fresh start is possible, rather than “here’s another helping of the same old stuff.”
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Seems like sound logic to me
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 8, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
i certainly appreciate the case for a new (better?) manager bringing out new/more fans, but that manager would have to be a bigger name than $600k/annum if it’s going to make a splash as far as tickets/overall revenue.
plus, as you’ve said, tix sales are typically a laggard, and the dolans can’t be expecting anything resembling suitable attendance levels for most of next year. if the kids are decent, though, then you may be able to apply the $600k you “save” by sticking with wedge for this last year to hiring a new, bigger name manager for ’11, to go along with the rising tide of talent. and if they suck in ’10, then you bag wedge and go w/ the $600k option in ’11, anyway.
i hear your argument, Jay, i just believe it to be a bit of a leap of faith, especially in a cost-savings year, coming off of a $16mm loss.
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 10, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Where is the backslash on your keyboard?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Hoynes has many more Dolan quotes
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2009/08/tribe_president_paul_dolan_cle.html
just read that, along with the mistake of browsing the comments. for the love of god, people… DON’T READ THE COMMENTS.
You are reading my signature.
Couldn’t resist…the best being
$16M is that all?"
I wonder how many Tribe fans can afford a loss that big…..
That’s the least of it. Other statements that are completely false:
if you wanted to win you wouldn’t give a sh*t about losing money.
What’s sad is that John Hart left a road map of how to intergrat youth and experience together to put together a successful franchise.
Jacobs lived with the same market
The constant piling on towards the cleveland.com commenters is getting pretty stale. We all get it, everyone needs to just let it go.
by millionairesrow on Aug 6, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s not just cleveland.com posters, these comments are indicative of the stupid dribble that anyone can hear daily anywhere they go and the Indians are being discussed. We live in a city with really unintelligent sports fans (and that’s not just baseball). And since trying to educate these fans rarely works (especially since the media loves to take the easy journalistic road and pander to them constantly) we are left to ridicule them and their comments to cope with their stupidity.
Sad to say, Cleveland fans are known around the country for being more knowledgeable than most, and they (we) are. Yes, we have our share of idiots, but fewer than most towns, and the non-idiots are pretty smart. What you will find in any other town is worse than what’s in Cleveland. I can tell you, having lived in Philly for about 20 years, half the fans here don’t even know what ERA is — and why should they, when they can just look at W-L?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
True, having never lived anywhere but here I have not been exposed to the silliness that is other fan bases. I do know that a majority of fans are smart, just by going to Tribe games you can see that a majority of the crowd is not of the cleveland.com ilk. Maybe it’s because I work with such a large sample size of the cleveland.com crowd that I am jaded to believe we are a drift in idiots.
Also, don’t forget batting average.
I spend most of my time here in Cleveland so I didn’t realize that our fanbase was actually better than the norm. I exchanged words with a member of the “Dolan is cheap” crowd yesterday who didn’t even know who we got back for Victor. He then went on to blame ownership for the loss of Branyan and Brandon Phillips. Even more disturbing was the fact that he didn’t realize that Asdrubal is the superior player to Phillips. It was like talking to cleveland.com in living form. I shudder to think what other cities must be like.
Speaking of Philly, is the Electric Factory a good venue for a show? My brothers and I are thinking of coming there to see Brand New and Thrice in November.
Electric Factory — not a fan.
Seems to me you’ve drifted over into apologia, over-reacting to the stupidity around you. Management is accountable for mistakes, and ownership is accountable for management. Obviously we did not realize as much value out of Phillips — and yes, even out of Branyan — as we could have and should have, and why shouldn’t a fan be pissed about it?
Asdrubal the superior player to Phillips? I think he can be, but I know he hasn’t been. Both players sit on exactly 53 runs created for the season, on pace for 80. For Asdrubal, 53 already is a career high, but Phillips has posted 74, 98 and 75 before. I don’t think either has an edge over the other on defense.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I quoted OPS+ on the Phillips/Cabrera debate, should have been more clear on that. I understand the frustration of the Branyan and Phillips moves, I really liked Branyan. What I don’t get is how you can blame that on owner cheapness. Surely it isn’t apologia to maintain that the Dolans are not responsible for those moves. Blame Wedge or Shapiro, sure, but the Dolans? What did they have to do with Russell Branyan?
Is the EF just not good acoustically or is there some other flaw? The other show we were considering attending is in the Time Warner Amp here in Cleveland and I am just not a huge fan of amphitheater shows and seated crowds.
EF is okay, I’m just not a fan.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends on how likely Cabrera is to get hurt again. He’s got 5.5 RC/G to Phillips’ 4.6 And Phillips is in the NL, in a park that should be more favorable to hitters.
Granted, but again, one of these guys is on pace to produce more than 60 runs for the first time, and the other one has produced 74+ three times and 98 once.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t have to tell me that. Odds are, I was the very first person who told you that.
fwembt posted:
Even more disturbing was the fact that he didn’t realize that Asdrubal is the superior player to Phillips.
That isn’t disturbing. Asdrubal has yet to establish clearly that he is the superior player, and it actually takes a pretty sophisticated fan to realize that he probably is and probably will be superior. That is really my whole point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Why do you assume that Rog isn’t cool enough to figure that out on his own? A little presumptuous, don’t you think?
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Only a little. Rog is plenty cool, no doubt. I was just very bullish on Asdrubal when we first acquired him, back when you were in middle school.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Back when I didn’t know anything about the Indians and not a whole lot about the Cradinals except that my Dad predicted a lost season every May.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Jay is right, he was the original with Asdrubal as I remember it. I am still learning which is why I come here every day
It always takes me a second to remember who fwembt is,given most people call me Brad. What Jay is saying is true though, I project a lot of what I assume Asdrubal’s future production to be onto him now. While BP may not be the player the average fan thinks he is, he has accomplished quite a bit. I took a quick look on the OPS+ and, this year, that favors Asdrubal. That is more along the lines of what I should have said.
It always takes me a second to remember who fwembt is,given most people call me Brad.
I don’t suppose we can call you “Be Rad” like in Malibu’s Most Wanted
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 7, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Don’t be so sure.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
My brother would call me “the other Melissa” if there were two Melissa’s somewhere.
And here it is the unveiling of my real name. In small subthread about what to call the two Brads.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
(That’s actually the reason we started this whole conversation.)
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 7, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Not so fast, Be Rad, I’m still pretty sure “she” is a 57-year-old dude typing from his mom’s basement.
That doesn’t mean his name isn’t Melissa
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 8, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
First, shouldn’t that be B-Rad?
Second, obviously we’re going to call CG “Mel” from now on.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah Tyler calls me that all the time. He knows things.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
You linked to your blog in your profile. I read it. Cybersluth.
by fleerdon on Aug 8, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
But can you go for the Vic Tayback avatar? That would really make it perfect.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Jay with the Pop Culture Reference Fail.
She’s 20. And a female. She probably doesn’t know who Gavin McLeod is, either.
Usually, an incredible waste of pixels.
I was counting on her having heard about Google, not Vic Tayback per se.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It’s just like assuming that this crowd appreciates the level of suck that Michael Bolton cornered. They’re too young Jay!
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Aug 10, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure that Google appropriately communicates the many layers of suck that was Michael Bolton. It’s almost a “you had to be there” experience. To be honest, it’s true, I have no idea of the level of suckitude for Pete Wentz, since I have no idea who the guy is. And No, I’m not going to try and find out either.
-Erik
I don’t think people really need Google to appreciate Bolton’s suck, do they?
I’m about to turn 24. I grew up knowing full well how bad Bolton was. Between 1987 and 1993 Bolton released all of his multi-platinum albums (and check out some of the winning titles—Time, Love, & Tenderness? Any title with “tender” in it deserves an asskicking). Then Office Space reminded me. And I’m just past an age range that Wentz targets himself to, although Fallout Boy really broke out of the underground when I was just exiting high school. I think I vote Wentz as the bigger pile of self-absorbed suck.
The only thing Bolton has going for him is that he creates it all himself. Wentz is just a member of a band. But Bolton never wore eyeliner, so I think Wentz takes the lead again.
Steel Nick
Granted on the eyeliner, but doesn’t the hair even it up?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That’s if you assume Wentz’s hair isn’t deplorable as well.
But I guess it’s a wash. And perm.
Steel Nick
If you are in fact 24, though, you were ages 2-8 when he released the multi-platinum albums that you mentioned. I am one of those that doesn’t know anything about Bolton (age 25) and I also didn’t like Office Space probably because I missed the joke
You missed the joke?
The joke is that he’s awful, and the idea of trying to relate to people who think he’s great is incomprehensible.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You really can’t appreciate how bad Bolton is – or how blasphemous either – unless you’re familiar with the original songs he so ruthlessly disembowels. Ray Charles must be doin’ about 6,000 RPM in his grave every time a radio station plays Bolton’s "version" of "Georgia".
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
“Sittin’ On The Dock Of A Bay” has to be the worst example of this.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I would be crazy to accuse you of stooping to Mel’s level, but I can say the following about Michael Bolton:
1. I moved to Cleveland in 1995, so I don’t know if this counts for the radio play
2. I typically either listened to sports radio or my own CD’s in the car. Don’t think I could identify one Michael Bolton song.
3. I understand, Jay, they were implying that Michael Bolton sucks, but like I said, I don’t know why. To me, he is no different than Eric Carmen, a native Clevelander.
No offense, Rog, but you basically have lived in a cultural bubble if you avoided Bolton to that extent.
My hat is off to you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I actually am pretty well aware of most things pop culture. I have lumped together and avoided musicians such as Neil Diamond, Michael Bolton, Eric Carmen, etc. I don’t know if their music is similar, nor do I want to know, but I am quite happy not knowing much of anything about these gentlemen.
The difference between MIchael Bolton and Eric Carmen is that there is general agreement that Eric Carmen sucks. There was a large group of people who thought, for reasons possibly related to mass hysteria or alien experimentation, that Michael Bolton was actually good.
Neil Diamond does not belong in that category. We’re biased thanks to what the Mini Mes in Fenway have done with Sweet Caroline (and to a lesser extent by crap like Heartlight and America), but Neil Diamond had quite a career as a songwriter, beginning at the Brill Building in 1965.
You are right, I was just over-exposed to Neil Diamond love in Boston during college. My school played Sweet Caroline at the end of every 3rd quarter of each football game and the whole crowd would do the chant. It annoyed the crap out of me. So I lumped him in with those other guys, and I am not going to relent
Realize, of course, that Michael Bolton would never be played at the end of a 3rd quarter, or 7th inning stretch, or bar anywhere, and that’s the difference between him and Neil Diamond.
Steel Nick
All by Myself, Never Gonna Fall in Love Again. And these immortal verses:
I set to sea on a ship called Emptiness
Cast away on the Island of Loneliness
Lookin’ for love
oh and I was lookin’ for love
I didn’t think she could hear my S.O.S.
But she appeared like an angel of tenderness
Sent from above
oh and she was bringin’ me love
Oh mama she did it
Woah mama she did it yeah
If you truly did miss the “Bolton era”, think of a love scene on a soap opera. His schmalzy music would be the musical score of 80s soaps.
As for Carmen, I’d equate him to a 70s version of Richard Marx.
Your courage has inspired me, Melissa.
My real name is actually Nick.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Aug 8, 2009 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My real name is Roger Dorn.
Ah, felt so much better
by Roger Dorn on Aug 8, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I look at that the same way I look at RBI. It tells me what happened in the past, very informative about what happened, but I need a hell of a lot more to make worthwhile guesses about future performance. If Asdrubal is the superior player to Phillips as of today, 8/7/09, he probably should be the one more likely to outperform in RC/G, once we adjust for league and park. And there’s little doubt in my mind that he’s more likely to.
Nobody’s arguing that. The question was only whether we should expect an average fan to have all that figured out.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions
This is all learned behavior. Cleveland – like many other towns – has had a history of owners with limited resources. Be it Mickey McBride and the Browns – inventor of the "taxi" squad – Nick Mileti and Ted Stepien and the Cavs or Vern Stouffer and the aforementioned Mileti with the Indians. We’ve had a string of owners with limited resources – cheap to the hoi poloi. So it’s understandable that the guy on the street complains about what appears to be – and probably is – moves made for economic reasons and doesn’t factor in the future. Mostly cuz all us have been hearing about the future for way too long.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s just me I’m sure … but I really don’t like this quote.
Not because I don’t understand the realities of this market … but just … ugh.
“If every four or five years we can have a shot at the World Series like we did in 2007. And compete for a playoff spot like we did in 2005, that’s as good as it gets in this market.
And I know that you know that, but there’s no use bitching unless to grow support for an indictment of the current system.
I think to just come out and say it to a semi-intellegent baseball fanbase isn’t the brightest thing to say.
I understand the ups and downs of being a team is this market … but I think there was a better way to say “We hope to have a shot at the World Series every 4-5 years.”
Yes, if Dolan is beginning the lobbying for a salary cap … this is a good quote. But, I’m not sure its the right time for it just yet …
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 6, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Someone has to say it. With the big market teams now hoarding their prospects (to some degree), it’s even harder for mid-small market teams to compete. Something has to give or teams will get contracted (or moved) in the next decade.
MLB actually had an economic commission maybe ten years ago that recommended (among many other things) moving four more teams into the greater megalopolis between Boston and Philly, mostly in and around NYC.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
This is why sports and economics are not one in the same. Revenue sharing is an important concept in sports or else we will end up with 8 New York area teams. Would that be the best thing for baseball?
I don’t see why it would be so bad to have teams in Brooklyn, Newark, Trenton and Hartford, or whatever it would be. I mean, how is that a bad thing?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s a bad thing if you don’t live in Brooklyn, Newark, Trenton, and Hartford.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Or a thousand other cities without big league clubs. There is no sense trying to change the fact that clubs get placed where they can be economically viable. I mean, it’s kind of crazy to argue against it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Not if no-one lives there. I don’t think South Dakota is exactly crying “foul!” about their missing team.
Well of course. I didn’t mean having a team in all 50 states. What I meant was you’d want to keep a team in, say, Seattle because that’s the only team in the entire Pacific northwest. You’d want to have most people in the country to be within a day’s drive of a major league team. People in South Dakota can drive to Minneapolis. That was my point.
I screwed up when I chose a state. Let’s say Montana then. But I think we each already understand what the other is trying to say.
Montana and Maine are the only continental states which don’t either have a MLB team or touch a state with has a team. And Maine isn’t that far from Boston, so Montana is pretty much the only state where you’re not somewhat close to a MLB team. So I’d say that the teams are pretty fairly distributed geographically right now. Of course it’s never going to be perfect.
I’ve only done it in the other direction, but at night and in the winter, and yes – it sucks
by APV on Aug 7, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Gotcha. You should move. Regardless of how many clubs are in New Jersey, South Dakota ain’t getting one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
We don’t have a good geographic distribution now. You may want to look at a map.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So we should make it worse?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
“Worse” implies that it’s a bad thing. Who cares?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m honestly not sure what this means. But since we pretty much all agree than 100% revenue sharing is the solution to this problem I don’t really have much more to say.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for telling me to look at a map, I’m not aware of the locations of our current teams.
Of coure there is not going to be a completely equal distribution. Do you really think that’s what I meant? The teams are going to be centered around the large population centers. My point, as I said above, was you don’t want to move teams like the Twins and Brewers to NYC just because it’s better economically because you’d lose all your teams in the mid-north. You don’t want people in a 8-state region to be without a major league team.
The areas between Boston and D.C., but not actually in Boston, NYC, Philly or D.C., are larger than most cities in America. I don’t think you are fully appreciating just how many people live in New Jersey and Connecticut.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I fully I understand that. But if you’re a kid growing up in Iowa or Nevada or Alabama you’d still like to be within a day’s drive of a major league team. It may be economically fair to move half of the teams to the Boston/NYC/Philly/DC area but that wouldn’t really be fair to the people who live in the less populated areas. You’d lose fans in those places because they wouldn’t grow up going to baseball games. And you’re not going to gain any more fans putting five teams in NY, you’re just change the allegience of the fans who are there (or who will be there in the future, more likely).
I can see your point, but I still don’t agree. I think it’s rather clear that baseball is not a sport whose revenues are driven by general fans with an allegiance, but rather by fans of one team who basically ignore all the others.
This is why the World Series has terrible ratings every year — 98% of the people in all but two markets just don’t give a crap. Its fan appeal isn’t like the NFL — nobody goes to an NFL game to enjoy a nice day outside — and they shouldn’t try to make it.
So I don’t think it’s necessarily true that MLB ends up with fewer fans with more teams crammed into the Northeast Megalopolis. And anyway, we’re just moving them from Florida.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Which came first? A depleted general interest in baseball or economic disparity amongst current ball clubs?
One of the appeals of football and basketball over baseball is that every team is on a fairly even competitive level. That stems from salary caps.
The general interest may not be lower than its historical levels, i.e., “depleted.” Baseball is very successful across the board in a couple hundred cities and towns, more successful than ever in some respects, but people really are just focused on the home team.
Agreed on salary caps, I just see media revenue as the quickest path to the goal of a level playing field. Salary caps are ten times tougher to negotiate, and arguably they are simply not necessary.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
This could be a circular argument. Perhaps the reason that 98% of the fans don’t care about the World Series is due to the way baseball is being run.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
But maybe it’s being run correctly, maximizing interest in local clubs at the expense of generating national celebrities.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Pro football enjoys an enviable revenue stream from TV contracts. Is this due to pro football being a superior game to MLB? Or is this due to some differences in the way the leagues are managed? I don’t think that either sport is superior to the other. That’s why I think MLB is missing a significant opportunity to increase its revenue by levelling the playing field rather than moving teams to more populated areas.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
The whole point of moving teams to more populated area is to level the playing field.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the NFL benefits from only having 16 games a year. The fans care a lot more about each individual game as a result. It’s tough to get the same level of emotion that I do for 162 Tribe games to how much I care about each Browns game…and that is when the Browns are 4-12 even
Right. Football is much easier to follow for the casual fan because it’s only once a week, and each game is a much bigger deal because there are so few. I don’t care much if I have to miss an Indians game for something but I try hard not to miss Browns or Buckeyes games because each game is so important. And it’s an excuse to get together with friends on the weekend.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 6, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
But that’s exactly my point. A kid in Alabama might grow up a fan of the Braves because his dad drives him to a game once a year and he can listen to them on the radio. Or a kid in Iowa following the Twins, or in New Mexico following the D-backs. I didn’t mean these kids would be fans of baseball in general, they’d be fans of a team they can drive to see once a year. If that team moves to NY then they’ll stop being fans of that team and hence baseball in general.
Yeah, but, bottom line, how many of them are there?
And how does the revenue that one fan generates compare to the revenue of moving the team to New Jersey? Local gate receipts and media contracts … this is not rocket science. Lots of things would be nice. Everyone should get ice cream every day. But nobody spends billions of dollars so the kid in Iowa can drive to a game.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess my point is that moving a team to New Jersey isn’t going to gain any new fans — because they’ll just be taking fans away from the Yankees and Mets — but you’ll be losing fans from the team that gets moved.
I said before that you may be right that it’s economically better to have five teams in NYC but that doesn’t mean it’s better for the overall game of baseball.
Fans that do what, though? Fans that spend what?
What about fans in Iceland?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
In terms of both future revenue and future talent
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I would say you’re ignoring the major factors in the revenue math.
Again, what about fans in Iceland?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, your Iceland point is kind of a strawman. I could easily say “Should we move a team to Tokyo if it can support a team?”
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Once that kind of travel becomes more viable within the schedule, I have little doubt that we will see exactly that sort of thing happen. Mexico in particular will happen sooner than you think, and who knows? Maybe in ten years, we’ll have a team in Havana. That would be pretty great.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m sorry, I don’t really see your point about Iceland. There are no baseball fans in Iceland and very few Icelanders will ever move to the US to become fans in the future. I never said there should be baseball teams everywhere so I don’t understand your argument.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 6, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions
My point is that the potential fan in Iceland presents the same revenue choice to MLB as the potential fan in Iowa. The day’s-drive fan is approximately zero percent of club revenues, and expecting clubs to make major decisions such as what city to play in to cater to that fan is strictly pollyanna stuff.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Uh, no. The fan in Iowa can go to one or two games a year and buy team gear. He can also move to a bigger city with a team when he’s in college or gets a job and will go to games more frequently then.
Anyways, you’re taking what I said way out of proportion. I never said baseball should have a team near every person in the country, only that a good geographic distribution, like we have now, is good for baseball. Moving half the teams to the northeast wouldn’t help baseball; they would lose many more fans than they gain.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 6, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh, yes. The revenue represented by said fan in Iowa is basically insignificant. The fan in Iceland can also move to an MLB city at some later point in life.
I fail to see how what we have now is a good distribution anyway. It’s just what we happen to have now.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
in this day and age, brad, it’s not important to have much of anything near much of anything else. what i mean is, your supposition that the popularity of baseball hinges on the proximity of a professional team is flawed, in my opinion.
sammy smith in sioux falls, sd, loves little league, watches espn, falls in love (platonically) with josh hamilton’s hr performance at the derby last year, follows hamilton on the internet, becomes a die hard rangers fan, and is a life-long baseball person.
it’s not hard to imagine, anymore, that locating teams in sell-out spots is better for the game. more sellouts, more coverage, more sammy smith’s. this is not the barnstorming era any longer.
by DontCallMeJoey on Aug 7, 2009 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions
There are folks who spent more than a year as regulars on LGT without ever having been to the Jake.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’ve been to Cleveland once.
And … I’m from Iowa.
I propose giving Victor a 2012 World Series ring.
by Gradyforpresident on Aug 7, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, that was a full twelve years ago.
I propose giving Victor a 2012 World Series ring.
by Gradyforpresident on Aug 7, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point. And what about Alaska? You know that “bridge to nowhere,” even had it been built, and even had it actually gone somewhere … still no big league ballclub when you get there.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Baseball is huge in Maui – HUGE! We got two players in the ML: Victorinao an All-Star and Suzuki a catcher with the A’s who was on the winner of the College World Series a few years back and a budding All-Star. Also! the Browns just drafted Kaluka Maiava, another local boy and another Hawaiian boy, David Veikune so I’m hearin’ a lot more about the Browns out here.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
My argument against it: The NFL makes crazy money with revenue sharing because fan interest is distributed widely. And because fans interest is geographically diverse, TV revenue, though shared equally, provides football with a huge $ advantage. Steinbrenner might end up taking a local hit if he had to share revenue, but it’s possible he would make it all back by sharing much greater media revenue. We aren’t just looking at a theoretical concept, this is happening in football.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
NFL teams don’t have three million seats to fill every year.
I’m a strong proponent of centralizing and 100% sharing all media revenue, but that’s a whole separate question from the matter of where the teams should be based.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. But if we had centralizing and 100% sharing of media revenue the conversation of where teams should be located would look a lot different.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Not really. You still want to put teams where sellouts are conceivable.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think if we were to give more teams to the areas you mentioned, Cleveland would be one of the first 5 to lose their team.
No. Cleveland can and does support competitive teams. Cleveland made the commitment to build Jacobs Field after 30 losing seasons in a row. You’d start with teams that have trouble getting decent stadia built — Florida, Tampa, Oakland — and then move on to marginal population centers — Milwaukee, Minnesota.
Anyway, even if they were willing to add teams in the Northeast, they wouldn’t move anything like five teams, and it probably would only be one or two.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
But they won’t move five teams. How many teams have ever moved?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, actually, quite a few, but they don’t tend to be teams with an established fan base of 100+ seasons.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Virtually all the teams that moved did so between 1953 and 1972, and franchise movement in baseball has been far less than in other sports.
Thank you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Has any sort of revenue sharing based on home attendence ever been discussed, to your knowledge?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Aug 6, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s all been discussed, and home attendance figures heavily into local revenues. But a good team in a small market can in fact draw three million, so if there were a level playing field, I don’t think local attendance would be a major problem. It’s also much more costly to operate a stadium in the major markets, which somewhat levels that one small part of the playing field.
There is no mystery as to how to fix the imbalance among MLB teams. You share 100% of the TV money, period.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Definitely Brooklyn — it’s the most populous boro, and it would put a team in each of the densely populated non-Manhattan boros. Definitely one in southern New England somewhere, probably either Hartford or Providence. Maybe one in New Jersey — probably Trenton, since it’s the capital, but they could just be known as the “New Jersey” Whatevers. I’d say the last one should go in northeastern PA somewhere — between the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Lehigh Valley metro areas, that’s a ton of people that right now are caught between Philly and New York. Most of those people wouldn’t root for a New Jersey team either, because nobody who doesn’t live there wants to identify with New Jersey. If you put it in Scranton, you could conceivably pull in some upstate NY people too.
plus they could be called the Staplers, Copiers, Erasers… the whole Office crew could show up on opening day. imagine the Scrantonian infamy
great.
My father-in-law ran the Hartford Civic Center – he’s the guy who represented the City of Hartford during the construction phase – and ran the center for 5 years afterward. He’s the guy who broght the Celtics to Hartford for five games a year. And to hear him tell it, he – backed by the big-wigs of the Hartford insurance industry – tried to buy the Celtics from Auerbach and move the whole deal to Hartford. After the hockey fiasco, he tells me that no one – nobody – who has any sense would ever, ever, own a major sports franchise in Hartford. Ever.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It would be a great thing. You couldn’t do it all at once or the Yankees would still be the pre-eminent team. But put a franchise in the Meadowlands and hartford right away. It’s the easiest way to achieve some semblance of balance (21 million people in the Yankees market?), but will never happen because the Yankees would be all over it with the law.
It would require a change in the MLB partnership agreement regarding exclusive territories, and they wouldn’t do it without an overwhelming majority vote of the teams. But they get 29 votes on every CBA anyway, so why not go all the way with it?
The Yankees are free to secede from MLB in retaliation. They can join the Independent League.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a tough one. The Yankees would naturally start looking for alliances. Number one suspect: Boston. Get them into the fold and then sweet talk the Mets, Dodgers and Cubs. It would be hard to hold fire with 29 teams threatening the Yankees, but if you pry a few teams away from that side, it’s a different story. Money talks, and the Yankees control more than one vote. Or more properly, their one vote is worth more than Pittsburgh’s vote.
Boston would not leave MLB over this. Their ownership has said eventually the problem has to be fixed.
The Yankees really have no stick here, if the other clubs can agree on exactly how they want to screw them. They really do only have one vote. Their only options are to sue or to leave the league, and they really cannot do that.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that either Hartford or Providence could support a major league sports team of any sort, and especially not baseball. The problem in Hartford, at least, is not really even the Yankees so much as it is the Red Sox. Sure, things could conceivably change if a franchise was located here, but it would be awfully tough given existing loyalties. It would sort of be like putting an MLB team in Columbus, except that the greater Columbus area is bigger and richer than greater Hartford.
Why don’t we completely realign MLB? You can keep the same 6 division format and keep the wildcard, but just radically realign the current structure. Make the divisions based on teams’ recent historic payrolls, taking into account the realities if geography. Make a super-spending east coast division composed of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies and Cubs. You could have a west coast version of this as well starting with the two LA teams. Add in some kind of promotion system whereby every few years you “reward” the teams that spend money with promotion to the big payroll divisions. If you also take away the unbalanced schedule, you have a solution to the problem without having to get into any type of salary cap.
by millionairesrow on Aug 6, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Payrolls change, and the last thing you want to do is institutionalize some teams as playing in a bad league. (NL teams already have this, but it’s not institutionalized.) Once the leagues are at different defined levels, the idea of “major league” falls apart.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I watched a couple innings of a Pirates-Nats game the other day.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
When I was visiting D.C., I went to a Nats-Padres game, and it didn’t work out.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions
It wasn’t long ago when the NL was dominate. These things run in cycles.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You’re right, but that’s been a few decades.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 7, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that’s what they said about the rest of Florida.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I consider Jacksonville area more like Atlanta (which doesn’t say much I guess since they couldn’t sell out when the Braves were awesome)
The Braves eventually couldn’t even sell out NLDS games. Weird.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 7, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
living in Atlanta from 97-01, those were very good Braves teams, and never once did I wonder whether a game would be sold out and I wouldn’t be able to get tickets
by APV on Aug 7, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
The Carolinas really could use a team Charlotte or Raleigh would both be good choices. Charlotte may be too close to Atlanta but if it were an AL team it would be fine.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
That’s because they’ve never had a team. I bet if you put it there they’d care. It’d be rough at first I think but it would be fine eventually.
South Carolinians only like college sports, so they’re weird.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I live in Raleigh, and I’m pretty sure most people here only care about college sports too. Not that I wouldn’t love an MLB team.
Oh I don’t disagree … I just wonder if there was a better way of saying it.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 6, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
When is the right time to say it, and what is the right way to say it?
I’ll say again, fan morale cannot get any lower than it is right now, so now is the time to admit all the bad news.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
As former member of the media … it depends on how much they want their message received.
For instance … to do this on the date of an afternoon game leaves the entire evening cycle open to criticism and hyperbole.
If you do it during the afternoon … with a night game to follow, it might at least deflect some of the casual fans from going off the deep end.
by FallsTribeFan on Aug 6, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
fan morale cannot get any lower than it is right now
Oh yes it can. Clearly you weren’t around for 70’s and 80’s Indians “baseball”.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I was not indifferent. I was bummed watching those stupid teams.
Usually, an incredible waste of pixels.
…to your mother. Peace out, dawg.
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
by woodsmeister on Aug 11, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure that is such a bad thing to say. Fan morale has, as Jay is fond of pointing out, crashed anyway. Dolan might as well get word out to the intelligent crowd that he thinks we can contend for a WS every four or five years. Is that really such a bad thing? We did in 2007 so, in theory, we will again in 2011-2012 and it really seems like we are building to that. With a little luck, we make a run between those years as a bonus.
The way our minor league talent is aligned right now, if we can catch a few breaks along the lines of development/injury luck/et cetera, we can have consecutive years of contention before arbitration/free agency begin catching up with us and we bring in the next crop of Mastersons and Santanas. That’s the life-cycle of a well-run small mid-market team, and I for one would be giddy to accept it as our reality as fans.
Thinking of it in 5-year cycles wouldn’t be the worst. The idea, too, is that we start every 5-year cycle a little better off than the one before it. 2006-2011 has been better than 2001-2006; 2011-2016 might be brutally awesome.
by fleerdon on Aug 7, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
There is still an archaic viewpoint (among some fans) that sports franchises are playthings of the wealthy. Like people who invest in race horses, oil speculation or yachting. That there will be an acceptable degree of losses that comes with it. What that loss is should be relative to the size of your net worth. So, if George Steinbrenner can spend 180 million dollars a year, the Dolans should spend 2-3 times that amount since they are obviously worth more.
Accountants don’t have field days, they sit quietly and weep
by Roger Dorn on Aug 6, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Craig at ShysterBall has a post about this. He doesn’t doubt that the Indians are going to lose some money this year but doubts these figures.
I don’t like that guy. And why would the Dolans straight up lie?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
How is it hard to believe in this economic bust of a city and in this terrible national economy that the Indians could stand to lose 16 million? Especially when you factor in players making over 10 million dollars isn’t that uncommon.
The logic in that piece is incredibly circular.
- I assume that what Dolan means is a loss in projected revenue based on projected ticket sales
- Actual attendance should be about 500,000 less than projected
- $16MM/500,000 = $32
- I assume $32 to be a reasonable figure for revenue/seat
- Therefore, what Dolan means is a loss in projected revenue based on projected ticket sales, and the Indians aren’t really losing money
- Dolan is cheap.
Don’t forget that he can’t sell the club because he will take a massive loss because he overpaid for it. Even though it is worth nearly a 100 million more now than what he paid for.
Interest, inflation. They are real.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Better to just refrain where it won’t be obvious.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
But it isn’t the fans’ fault the owner bought the team on a credit card. That would be a legitimate gripe.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
But everyone acquired debt over the last decade. Harvard, which had a $40B endowment, is laying people off because of the debt servicing obligations they have now. It’s reasonable to be pissed about it, but you’re just going to end up being a pissed off person who hates everyone (and by everyone, I mean every large financial entity).
by APV on Aug 6, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
But if you’re already a pissed off person who hates everyone …
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s not trying to say “Dolan is cheap”, just that he doesn’t believe they planned on making zero profit this year. Which isn’t a bad assumption to make. I assume many, if not most, owners try to spend at least a little less money than they take in.
Yes he lives in Columbus, not sure where he was born.
He doesn’t seem to be a fan of any team (although I think he mentioned rooting for the Braves as a kid) but more of a guy who just likes watching and following baseball. I don’t remember him every saying anything to make me think he hated the Indians; he certainly has criticized the team but that doesn’t mean he “hates” them. I’d really like to know why Turk thinks this; it always annoys me when fans think a certain writer is biased just because he says something bad about their team (not saying this represents Turk). I don’t know why Craig would hate any baseball team, he just gives his opinions on them.
Braves fan. He doesn’t hate the Indians that I can tell; he just has a weird mix of local knowledge, since he gets STO, and total ignorance, since he gets STO.
by fleerdon on Aug 6, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, like I said I knew he grew up a Braves fan but I didn’t know if he still considered himself one or how much he followed the team. Rob Neyer grew up a Royals fan but he’s pretty much gotten over that now that he’s a national writer (and probably because they’re so inept). He probably would like to see the team do well but he doesn’t really get upset about the losses any more. I wonder if Craig is that kind of Braves fan or if he still actively roots for the team.
I don’t even know who this is.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
You’ve never read Shysterball? It’s a blog by a lawyer who lives in Columbus and writes about baseball. He was independent for a couple years but now he’s on THT.
Of course, I just didn’t recognize the name.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
A lawyer and a Braves fan? Sounds like he needs a spanking to me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And he’s a big Buckeyes fan who lives in Columbus so you must really hate him.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 7, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, but I think he’s mentioned he can’t find himself to root for the team until they get rid of the Chief. So I guess he doesn’t hate Cleveland, but he’s not a super supporter. I think he likes the Columbus Clippers though.
Well there are probably many Indians fans who don’t like Chief Wahoo but root for the team anyways. That doesn’t mean he has a bias against the Indians, though. He’ll probably follow them more than most teams because I imagine he goes to quite a few Clippers games and he can watch STO any time he wants.
So let’s examine the Dolan corporatespeak:
He says the club will have to borrow monies as a result of losing 16M. It means that the Dolans don’t intend to pay that loss out of pocket. So we have next year’s payroll + 16M + interest on the borrowed 16M. Of course, the Dolans don’t have to cover the loss in one year, but it means that they will be looking to dump as much salary as they can without making the club seriously less competitive. If they can get the payroll down to 50M, they’d be ecstatic, but I’m not sure that’s feasible in 2010, maybe in they can the following year.
Then there’s the matter of personnel management. They understand that Shapiro is opposed to hiring a new manager and has come out publicly in his support of Wedge. A way to preserve order, satisfy the ticket buying fans and to avoid ruffling Shapiro’s feathers, is to say that the decision on retention of Wedge will come from ownership.
The most telling statement was about the need to sell off Vic and Lee this season to address the $ losses. When we couple this statement to reports that Shapiro accepted prospects for them that reportedly neither Toronto nor Arizona asked for, it seems that we were in a bidding war to accept less than other teams in order to sell off assets.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
He didn’t say the club will borrow 16M right now to cover the loss, nor did he say the club would borrow the whole 16M. He simply said, the club will need to borrow money over the next few years.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s right. Whatever the payroll is next year and the year after will have to be reduced enough so that the club will make enough to cover payroll and repay whatever debt is borrowed. Given that attendance will be modest, that payroll number is probably going to be low.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
Castrovince has a fuller review of the presser.
The need to trade this sesson wasn’t motivated by this years losses so much as it was designed to minimize the future impact of those losses. Your conclusion is that we accepted prospects no other team wanted, in a race to the lowest price in the deal ignores the reality that Toronto did not succeed in making a deal with anyone.
by MTF on Aug 6, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not understanding your point. There’s a big difference between taking prospects nobody else wants and accepting prospects that are valuable but nobody else demanded. These were prospects that the trading club found palatable and it allowed Cleveland to assure itself that it would get the trade that reduced payroll immediately while other clubs held out for key prospects and weren’t in as much rush to reduce payroll.
featuring the curses of Bobby Bragan and Rocky Colavito
That statement about Wedge makes it seem like he will be gone. It relieves Shapiro of the culpability of firing Wedge.
I’m really not so sure. Look:
“Eric and his staff have achieved a lot in their time here,” Dolan said. "I think fans tend to forget that. When he took over in ’03, he took over what was, in essence, an expansion franchise. In a relatively short period of time, he turned it into a competitive team. He and others deserve a lot of credit for that.
I take the front office and ownership at their word. I think they have not yet made up their minds and will not decide until they conduct a thorough review at the end of the season.
What more do they need to see? Seriously. The guy played Ryan Garko in the outfield. He’s letting both Kelly Shoppach and Andy Marte rot on the bench in favor of Chris Gimenez. He cannot adequately evaluate the talent he has, and does not really seem interested in doing so. Wedge has to go, no matter how well the team plays down the stretch.
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
no
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Sitting three games out of eight? And for what?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
5 out of 8 games is rotting on the bench? He’s played more games than Hafner in the last 7 days. That’s hardly rotting on the bench.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously. You (w.d.) are really straining not to see the problem here.
Here, I’ll make your next obtuse point for you: He’s also starting more than Dave Dellucci.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
ouch my feelings are hurt. I guess you won this argument Jay.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Word. I’m actually pretty pissed about Marte’s playing time, and I’m one of those idiots who thought that ‘08 Marte was not offensively viable. As I saw it last year – Marte’s ’06 and ’07 AAA numbers destroyed his standing with the FO, so he was called up merely as 3b filler – meanwhile Blake was parlayed into Santana.
I’m guessing that before the season started the FO decided to DFA Marte unless he was torrid in his few ABs. So sporadic playing time isn’t a sin if you have no interest in developing a player. But now – the only conceivable defense for ignoring Marte’s playing time is keeping Peralta. Either that, or there is no defense, and Wedge has his head up his ass.
sporadic playing time isn’t a sin if you have no interest in developing a player. But now – the only conceivable defense for ignoring Marte’s playing time is keeping Peralta.
I think they are trying to keep Peralta.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
And why would they be trying to keep him?
I mean, they can just keep him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I phrased that badly. I should have said, they probably either:
A) Want to increase Jhonny’s trade value in order to dump his salary.
or
B) Want to give him every opportunity to be the teams 3B next season so they want to give him as many reps as possible.
Though, I’d bet they’re trying to decide between the two options.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
So what you’re saying here is, they want to disadvantage Marte’s performance this season so as to give them more of a rationalization for keeping Peralta despite his higher salary?
The only thing missing in your theory is an idea that makes any sense whatsoever.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Subtle Jay. I like your style.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Aug 6, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hey Jay, you don’t play for the Yankees. There’s no need to be a jackass.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 7, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
My thoughts exactly.
At some point, it’s time to abandon your total lack of a point, rather than just continuing to argue for lack of an escape route.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Do they want to let Jhonny continue to drive his value up by improving his seasonal stats? Perhaps
Guess i did have a point huh.
You might disagree with my second theory about the Indians wanting to give Peralta more reps at 3B, but, and I say this with no irony intended, that’s just your opinion. Nowhere near an incontrovertible fact.
Look, I’m not trying to get into a pissing match, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with you and saying something stupid.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 8, 2009 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Driving up value would be to trade him, not to keep him. You don’t have to drive up someone’s value to keep him, you just, well, keep him. That’s the part that doesn’t make any sense.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 8, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, what’s so hard to understand about Marte possibly being our 1b next year with Laporta in LF?
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
I guess I just can’t believe they’d find Marte worth keeping without cashing in on his defensive skills at 3B. If he’s worth keeping, Jhonny is worth moving.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 6, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Mind you, I like Jhonny as our 3B just fine. But he isn’t part of Tribe ‘11-’14, that’s for sure.
Incidentally, you could probably get Marte to sign a five-year deal for $8 million total.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Donald plays some hot corner, too, no? Don-Cab-Val-Mart could be a pretty sparkly late-inning defensive infield.
by fleerdon on Aug 8, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
In response to Jeffrey’s quote by Dolan re: Wedge, that’s easily something you can say about a guy heading out the door.
Steel Nick
Definitely. If I were Wedge and the guys at the top were saying things like this I would be legitimately concerned for my job. It’s something that says we appreciate all you’ve done here but we’re ready to move on.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
Damnit let’s just fire Wedge. Even if it’s to throw a bone to the fans. Either way you look at he’s not an amazing, irreplaceable manager.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 6, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
In from Castro
Eric Wedge will not be in attendance for Friday’s game in Chicago (the rest of this is redacted despite my dwindling Wedge-resultant decorum)
I’m taking odds on Marte playing Friday.
I like Giminez. I’m adding a adding my building enmity towards him to my grievances against Wedge’s continued presence
Stuart Dean
If Marte plays friday that would also fall into the every other day rotation Wedge seems to have set up. I’m not sure we can draw any conclusions from Marte playing tomorrow
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Aug 7, 2009 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions
No, he’ll play the first two games and rest the day game after a night game. That’s been the pattern.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
