kramnoj

No other owners want to see teams go away... look at what happened when Selig mentioned contraction several years back. That would financially hurt all of baseball, and every owner would make less money. What happened was that the owners negotiated a new CBA with a higher luxury tax and more revenue sharing. In other words, it took money from higher revenue teams that could have been spent on players, and distributed it to lower revenue teams like the Pirates and Marlins. And in one year, the Pirates gave that money to themselves. But I think you were trying to make another point that isn't clear to me. It's also not clear to me how the Pirates being contracted would result in every owner having less money. The opposite seems much more likely. What math are you doing to result in your statement?

You don't believe they should ever be able to draw from their investments, even to pay off a liability that occured solely due to the investment. Why should they? What did they do to improve the business? If the owners haven't generated revenue to be self sufficient, why do they deserve to take money that they didn't generate? If they can't handle this, they have two options: improve the business so that i generates more profit, or sell it to an owner who is willing to put in the effort to improve the business. Who all need teams like the Pirates to survive in order to be able to play baseball games. Not really. MLB existed just fine with fewer teams. If the Pirates are a sucking chest wound of funds, and then the Pirates take the money meant to be spent on the team, then the Pirates aren't being honest. The other team owners would be better off financially by having fewer teams with which to split national revenue, and by not having to give the Pirates money because of an agreement that the Pirates may not be honoring. Municipalities have every right to demand the financials prior to giving the team anything. If the team doesn't show their financial records, then they don't get any money. I don't believe this to be true. I don't think the Marlins opened their books to the local government when they were saying they needed a new stadium.

So if it is, in your own words, questionable for a team owner who accepts revenue to ever take money out of the team, where should that money go? I'm pretty sure I already said this, but there are three easy answers: 1. It stays with the team. If they have done a good job of spending the money on improving the team, whether that be development, facilities, or major league players, and there isn't a reasonable investment that they can make at that moment, then it just stays on the books to be used in future years. 2. It gets returned to MLB. If the team accepts revenue sharing money and has money to pay the owners, that money can be returned to be dispersed again at a later time. After all, this revenue sharing money came from other teams. If the Pirates have left over money, it goes back to the teams from which the money it was taken. 3. As a good faith gesture, the Pirates offer to pay down some of the stadium debt that the local government financed. Now for the Pirates, this is not as much of a pressing concern. That stadium deal was negotiated before the current CBA. For the Marlins, as you mention, it is much more relevant. If you believe that it is questionable for an owner to ever take a penny out of the team, as all of the revenues should go "to improve the team," then I believe I was correct in my initial assessment of your position. Your question was vague. I believe that teams that run a profitable business without outside assistance should be allowed to pay themselves. Which leads to: You are fully entitled to your opinion. It just differs from mine. I think owners should be able to make money on their investments. Please tell me where I have said that owners shouldn't be able to make money on their investments. I don't think that owners should take money from other teams and then pay themselves with it. I think that teams should be honest with municipalities about how much money they can afford for the building in which they work. And I don't think that owners of a business are guaranteed money to pay themselves if they can't generate enough revenue to do so.

I know you like playing on words I'm responding to the words you use in the exact context that you use them. If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team) I would think it is questionable, especially if they are playing in a taxpayer funded stadium. I would have to understand what the CBA allows for. But I don't think any owner is guaranteed money in any given year. And it is my opinion that the Pirates acted guilty by gathering the press together to spin their actions when they became aware that this report was being leaked.

But they didn't pay themselves with revenue sharing money, they paid themselves with operating revenue. If they didn't accept revenue sharing, they wouldn't have had the money to pay themselves. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Well, yes, they could drain all of their personal wealth, but I think that paying millions of dollars out of their own pocket while leaving profits in the team's bank accounts is doing quite a bit for the team You said they were doing all they could for the team. You are now saying they are doing quite a bit. Those are different statements. Which one is your position?

If the Brewers feel a Sep callup is an appropriate reward for a player for the reasons that you mention, they will know better than I. But it should be noted that Braun didn't get a Sep callup, and it didn't prevent him from signing a team friendly deal.

That's their money, and they can do what they want with it. This isn't true. They accept revenue sharing money. They can't do what they want with it. You are arguing that it should all go to "improving the team" That is part of the collective bargaining process with the union. That kind of validates why I don't think my statement was overly silly. So you admit that it was silly. Rather than try to engage in an intelligent discussion, you ask a question including words I didn't use, asking if that that was my position. Their team payroll is much more than they received in revenue sharing, so they did spend the revenue sharing on "improving the team." They spent some of the revenue sharing money on the team. Not all of it. Of the operating revenues, most of that appears to have stayed with the team, as the owners only took money out one year to reimburse themselves for taxes they would not have incurred had they not held ownership in the team. As owners of a business, they are in no way guaranteed to be compensated enough to pay for their taxes. That's an obligation they have when they own a business. If they aren't happy with that, or can't bear the burden, they should sell their stake. There is never a lack of suitors for people wanting to own a baseball team. To me, these guys appear (at least monetarily) to be doing all they can to help the team. It's clear that this is your opinion, but it obviously false. They aren't doing all they can to help the team. They are paying themselves money that was intended for the team. but it seems far-fetched to believe that there is a problem with what they're doing. It really isn't. In the late 90's the Pirates drew 1.5-1.7 million people in Three Rivers stadium. Over the last 3 years, the Pirates are drawing the same number of people. In 2000, the last year in Three Rivers, the Pirates payroll was less than $30M. In 2010, the opening payroll was $39M. Increasing payroll by $10M over 10 years is not really increasing the payroll at all. The Pirates have spent as much as $57M, but it hasn't lead to more victories than they had in Three Rivers. The Pirates were managed poorly for much of their time in their new ballpark. They haven't taken advantage of the increased revenue. They are on the right path with how they approaching development, but it doesn't change that paying themselves with revenue sharing money was wrong. If the Pirates didn't feel they did anything wrong, they wouldn't have assembled local members of the press on Sunday to explain themselves. But they were clearly afraid of how it might look that they distributed money to owners when they haven't been able to put a winning product on the field since 92.

At the least, bring up Rivas and give him a start or two. It can't hurt. Sure it can. He can accumulate service time in a lost season. Much better to let him finish the season in the minors and then place him and promote him as warranted next year. If he looks ready after a couple of weeks, he can be brought up in 2011 and the Brewers will get most of a 7th year out of him.

47 doesn't address what I wrote. Address the specific issues that I discussed: Are the Pirates required by federal law to pay the taxes for the owners? Do the Pirates pay the taxes for the owners every year? If the answer to both of those questions is No, then the Pirates made a choice. And they chose to give themselves the money. True, or false?

Not a player, but I used to work for Gateway Computers at the store that was in Brookfield, and sold a computer to Dean Taylor when he was GM of the Brewers. Unfortunately, I had only recently moved to Wisconsin and so I didn't know who he was until I was entering his credit application (90 days same as cash, not that he couldn't have put it on a credit card) and he wrote that his employer was the Brewers and I asked him what he did for them. He was a nice guy, very analytical, asked good questions. It was funny because while I was talking to him, he had a pager that kept going off and he was checking it. I'm pretty sure it was a Saturday afternoon, but he was still a busy guy. I also once almost ran into Selig in his black Lexus as he was coming out of Gilles and he didn't look to his left for traffic on Bluemound. I didn't have to slam on the brakes, but I did have to slow down.

Is your arguement that owners are greedy if they take a penny out of the organization, because every last dime should go to the players? That's a silly question. Do I ever make that argument? No. So, the players need to get paid no matter what, but the owners are not allowed to ever get paid, even if it is simply to reimburse them for expenses they would not have had if they were not owners? Players get paid according to their contract, which they negotiate with owners. Owners are allowed to get paid, depending on the circumstances. If they are given money in a collectively bargained revenue sharing agreement designed to improve the team and instead give themselves that money, then there is a problem.

Again I read the report the payment you reference was a tax payment. It doesn't go into the owner pockets to buy a new Rolls it is a treatement of passing the taxes from the club to the owernership. Very common in LP accounting and tax treatements. But it's not common for the Pirates to do this. They don't do it every year. They had extra money, and they chose to give it to the owners, which is directly the opposite of what you wrote in your first sentence in post 32. At least one article written about this notes that because the Pirates are an LP, they are not required by federal law to pay the taxes of the owners. So the Pirates owners had a choice, and unsurprisingly, they chose to pay themselves. Now you can say it went to pay taxes, instead of in their pockets, but that's not much of a distinction. As owners of a business, they are obligated to pay their taxes on this business. If they chose to pay themselves the money to cover taxes, they have given themselves money they otherwise wouldn't have had. For some owners, it may indeed have been enough money to buy themselves a Rolls Royce, if they so chose.

My point was that the owners didn't pay themselves the money according to the article they did not pay a dividend. If you had read the linked report, you would see that the Pirates distributed over $20 Million in 2007 to the owners. It wasn't dividends, but this was money that went to the Pirates owners. This money could have been given to the city of Pittsburgh as a good faith gesture for the stadium, but it instead was paid to some of the owners. This is from the financial report that the Pirates file. Here are the documents from the Pirates for your review: http://deadspin.com/56150...ial-documents//gallery/1 I don't doubt that the Pirates made some sort of profit I just don't find the report of such to be a an agregious offense. There may be people that disagree with you. For example, the citizens of Pittsburgh. If the Pirates made enough money to distribute $20M in one year to owners, did the Pirates truly represent themselves in terms of how much they could contribute towards stadium financing? The MLBPA may also have cause for concern. While it is a valid point that more major league spending would not have drastically improved the Pirates, this is still money taken from other teams and given to the Pirates for the purposes of building a competitive team. If the Pirates didn't use all those funds for that purpose, then this is money that is not going to the players. Since the revenue sharing was collectively bargained with the union, they have cause for concern that money taken from other teams was given to the Pirates, and that money was not used for the intended purpose. That money could have been used by the teams from whom the money was taken and spent on players.

Let me say it again, why should they be forced to spend it on marginal major league talent that won't make the team any better but will just serve the purpose of wasting the money so as not to show a profit. Saying it again isn't helpful, since it didn't have anything to do with what I said. Nowhere do I say that the Pirates should spend more money on major league players just to spend money on major league players. But if they are taking money from other teams, the owners shouldn't pay themselves with that money. If they have money left over that can't be put to good use on development, then they send the money back to the league. They obviously didn't need it. The purpose of the revenue sharing should be to improve teams, at the major league level, or for development for future major league talent. It shouldn't be used as profit for the owners who receive the funds. Also income statements, if that is what was leaked, do not account for capital investments such as stadium improvments. I'm curious, have you actually read what the linked documents? It wasn't income statements. It was the Pirates financial report, including expenditures. It is also interesting that the revenue sharing payments were 2x the reported profits so without the reveneu share agreement they would have been $15MM+ in the hole each year forcing further cutbacks. Again, there isn't an outcry to get rid of revenue sharing. But it's not clear that the Pirates really needed all the revenue sharing that they got, either.

If the Pirates were forced to spend all their money or even some high percentage like 80% on the MLB payroll - - how long before they stunk again as their minor leagues suffered from lack of investment and the team was forced to sign aging Free Agents to bad contracts just to spend the money Nobody important or intelligent is complaining that the Pirates are spending money on development. However, if the Pirates take the handout money and then the owners pay themselves with that handout, there's a problem.

Bref has Gamel with 2 games at 1B and 4 games in RF this year.

Deadspin now has the financial reports for a number of teams for those curious. This does make me wonder, who is leaking this info? At first, I thought it might be one of the minority Pirates owners who is upset that they weren't getting any dividends but still have to pay their taxes on their ownership. But now that more teams are being revealed, it makes me think that someone is doing this as an opening shot for the CBA that will be expiring in a year or so.

Gomez hit .258 in 2008 and he kept his job. He's hit less than .258 since then, and hasn't been a full-time starter. There's an expression that we have at work, it's probably management 101: that which we accept becomes standard. Gomez knows from his experience that .260 is acceptable, and less than that is not. He doesn't need to raise the bar above that, based on his experience.

A somewhat interesting story in that someone who had access to the Pirates financial report leaked it to the AP. Here is one story, there are plenty others out there: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4648:pittsburgh-pirates-financial-info-shows-everything-from-revenue-sharing-to-tv-money-and-more&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42 I haven't been able to find the full report yet, that could be an interesting read. I also checked the yearly profits discussed in the report and compared them to the annual Forbes reports. Forbes had the Pirates with $15M operating income for 2009 compared to the Pirates saying they were at about $5M, but for the two previous years, Forbes was within a mil or so

What exactly are people expecting from this guy? If we ever count on him as anything more than a defensive sub, we have issues. I'm expecting him to be motivated by money. If he understands that any career for him is going to be tied to learning to be a better hitter, he would have reason to put in the work to do so.

I'd say that Capuano's success right now and his limitation on future innings makes him a good candidate to start the season as a 5th starter to be replaced by Rivas or some other minor league pitcher during the season. It's a good solution. It let's the Brewers keep a player in the minor leagues long enough to keep them for a 7th partial season, or prevents them from accumulating enough time to be a Super 2, while taking advantage of Cap's ability. If Cap declines because of fatigue, bring up the prospect to replace him. Of course, things rarely go as planned, so if the Brewers suffer an injury to other starters that are replaced by prospects and then Cap reaches his limit, the Brewers aren't in a good situation. But then he can be replaced by Narveson or Parra, assuming that one, or both, of them would be long men at that time.

#72 is an excellent post. It is very different from what had been posted previously. For me, I would bring back Gomez and put him in AAA. Based on what I believe I know, he can spend the next two seasons in AAA without any problems. He has the tools to be a better player, but he needs to work to be a better contributor. Cain should be starting in CF regardless, and Dickerson looks like a good 4th OF. I would rather have Katin has a 5th OF and PH than have Cain, Dickerson and Gomez in the major leagues. If Gomez puts in the work and improves, maybe he can be traded for some other value down the road. I think that could be worth a 40 man spot, but I haven't looked at that closely enough to be confident in that.

UZR has to be regressed halfway even after 3 years. For projection purposes, sure. But I haven't been talking about projections in these posts you are quoting. I have talked about Gomez's past value, and I have talked about the theoretical value one can provide in a given season. A WAR based almost entirely on WAR is suspect at best. Not really. That is the value provided in that season. Milton Bradley can hit .321 in a season. He shouldn't be projected to hit .321, but he will provide value in a season when he does.

Gomez hasn't had enough time in CF to have UZR show how well he has actually played. That's a tad bit of an exaggeration. With over two full seasons, we should have a decent idea. We know enough to believe that he has, in his career, been a good-very good CF. But that's not what you said. You said that nobody could play defense well enough to justify his offense. A CF can hit that poorly and still be valuable with very good defense for the right price.

Nobody could possibly play defense well enough to justify the offense Gomez has put up. This is completely incorrect. Gomez was a 2 WAR player in 2008 with just good, not great defense.