Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Cowboy Altitude for Wyoming Fans!

Mario Lemieux, Ron Burkle Make Offer to Buy Pirates

Bob Nutting says no. I can't imagine the amount of tooth-gnashing this is going to inspire. This is way out of the realm of my expertise, but: I won't be one of the tooth-gnashers, because I suspect that as the Pirates' owner Lemieux would run up against many of the same challenges Bob Nutting faces.

0 recs  |  Comment 179 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Interesting. I wonder what kind of offer they could have made. Seems like if you’re just throwing an unsolicited offer at a team that isn’t for sale you would have to be willing to go above market value to even be considered.

by ElDuce on Jan 30, 2010 1:24 AM EST reply actions  

I’m still willing to give Nutting a shot to follow through on his recent words. If he doesn’t, Mario would be a fine alternative. He might not know baseball, but he knows how to hire people who do, and he would be a great baseball owner.

This is still kind of stunning. I don’t suspect we’ve heard the absolute end of it.

by Suffering Buc on Jan 30, 2010 1:25 AM EST reply actions  

Damn, wouldn’t that just be the bee’s knees.

For various reasons I doubt this will ever happen though.

by Schide on Jan 30, 2010 1:26 AM EST reply actions  

I'm not a huge hockey fan

So I don’t know too much of the intricacies of the game. But I do know that the Pens were consistently toward the bottom of the league in payroll before the lockout, prior to the salary cap. I’m sure people will still think Mario would come in and spend $100M per year, though.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 1:39 AM EST reply actions  

According to Wikipedia (which, whatever), you’re right, they were below average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_team_payrolls_in_the_NHL#Pittsburgh_Penguins

I won’t comment above because I just don’t know what that means, since I’m not a hockey fan. Why were they below average?

by Charlie on Jan 30, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions  

The same reasons the Bucs are now

Smaller market, less TV money, bad team, etc. They had the league’s lowest attendance prior to the lockout:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2004

After the lockout, according to Wiki, they were able to sign some free agents now that a cap and increased revenue sharing was in place. Then once they hit the lottery with Crosby, attendance shot up in the season after the lockout.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Huh.

I sent some questions out to a Pens blogger about this. We’ll see what he says.

by Charlie on Jan 30, 2010 1:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Pittsburgh isn’t a particularly small market for the NHL. It’s still in the bottom third of the league, but right at the top of that bottom third. There are really only 3 MLB teams you can say are definitely in smaller markets than the Pittsburgh, but there are at least 8 in the NHL. MLB markets as a whole are much larger than in any other sport. The Penguins being way down near the bottom in terms of payroll indicates that they were actually underperforming for their market size.

by ElDuce on Jan 30, 2010 2:00 AM EST up reply actions  

That's a good point

I guess there are different variables involved in the NHL though, particularly with their Canadian teams. You have smaller cities like Edmonton and Ottawa, where they’re really the only game in town, and people are nuts for hockey, so the dynamic is a bit different I guess.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 2:04 AM EST up reply actions  

They were both incredibly lucky and very savvy

The Penguins had either the first or second pick on the draft 4 times in a row, and they picked very well all 4 times. Fleury #1 (goalie), then Malkin #2 (in a year where there were 2 superstars at the top), then Crosby #1 (lottery because of the lockout), then Staal #2.

If you were able to draft Mark Teixeira, ARod, Derek Jeter and CC Sabathia in consecutive years and they all appeared in MLB at pretty much the same time and became superstars within 2 years…you would expect attendance to go up.

To the Pens’ credit, they made some very savvy trades and developed those guys well. They certainly could have squandered opportunities, but they were masterful at putting role players around them to compliment them.

Plus they played the Malkin situation like a violin…smuggling him out of Russia to get out of his strong armed contract. There was no Sano-type bungling for sure.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 3:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Burkle..

Some big differences.. Ron Burkle is mega rich and is very capabale of putting big time money into the Pirates, Cap or Not.

Mario is the king of Pittsburgh. Just him on his name would increase attendance.

These two have mad some of the best decisions in hockey in getting guys to run a franchise.

Those are 3 things Nutting and Littlefield Jr don’t have.

by psunate77 on Jan 30, 2010 7:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Was Burkle the owner when the Penguins wouldn’t pay Jagr or Kovalev and were well on their way to becoming the Pirates of the NHL before the lockout? I do believe so, yes

by TravisDW on Jan 30, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Indeed he was.

Funny how people get pissed at Jagr for that, but Burkle gets a pass.

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

As many have pointed out its silly to compare the old NHL economic climate to the current MLB one. The NHL is a gate driven league. The league doesn’t hand out anywhere near as much money to each team as the MLB currently does in revenue sharing.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Not really. In both leagues, the biggest share of money came from ticket sales. Revenue sharing is there in MLB, but it’s not really as much money as you seem to think it is.

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 11:35 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah

He is also the same guy that gave Crosby and Malkin big contracts… Don’t matter. Pirates are a joke, hopefully they leave Pittsburgh.

by psunate77 on Jan 30, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmmm...

“Don’t matter. Pirates are a joke, hopefully they leave Pittsburgh.”

Yep, that will definitely take care of the Nutting problem. Interesting. So you believe in the cut off your nose to spite your face style of punishment?

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

He is also the same guy that gave Crosby and Malkin big contracts

After the salary cap was put in place. Malkin and Crosby would have both been gone had the old financial structure been in place. Do you not remember this same ownership group sending Fluery down to the minors to not pay his bonuses? Obviously not. The Penguins were on their way to being the Pirates of the NHL.

by TravisDW on Jan 30, 2010 8:06 PM EST up reply actions  

People mad at Jagr cause the guy is a huge baby the way he acted. Bad mouthing Pittsburgh, making comments. The guy si a turd and yeah Burkle gets a pass.

He still easily better then Nutting who continues to rip off the Pittsburgh taxpayers.

by psunate77 on Jan 30, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

In what way does he rip off Pittsburgh taxpayers?

The park has already been built. That’s a sunk cost. Any other payment toward Nutting is voluntary, not city-subsidised.

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I will say that PNC Park is an amazing advertisement for the city of Pittsburgh. It’s worth every penny to the area to have the city showcased during every home Pirate game to the people in the visitor’s city. Sure, it would be nice if the Pirates were a great team as well, but that makes little difference when people in other areas get the impression that Pittsburgh is a beautiful and vibrant city and every announcer marvels at how beautiful the city is.

The argument that the city got ripped off is ridiculous, no matter how good the team is.

Anyway, Nutting is earning my respect every day as he has to endure the unfounded vilification that so many people heap on him. In my opinion, the guy is practically becoming a martyred saint.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions  

No doubt PNC park is a gem that does what you say.

Only time will tell if the vilification is unfounded – sounds like hyperbole that he is practically a martyred saint. Then again, with your rational discussion, including metrics, you’re opinion carries weight.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 12:17 AM EST up reply actions  

Sure, he’s a martyred saint with millions of dollars and an MLB baseball team. That probably helps to lessen the sting a bit for him.

:-)

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 1:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Slight over statement

in my opinion, but I generally agree: I’m liking Nutting more and more for how he is withstanding the unfair attacks on him by the casual yinzer ticket buyer.

In fact, I have been boycotting spending any money on the Pirates since the walkout a few years back. I’m seriously thinking of an economic return to Pirate baseball.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 31, 2010 7:11 AM EST up reply actions  

casual yinzer ticket buyer?

Are the unfair attacks coming from them? Not sure how you can determine that. I think it comes off as a bit arrogant with yours and the numerous other comments on the board regarding the unwashed masses. Not everyone can afford a ticket plan and not everyone can invest the time it takes to understand the economics of PBC (not that that’s even possible).

On the other hand and in all seriousness, congrats on taking a principled stand on baseball. If you don’t like what they do, vote with your dollars. I took a year off myself (I couldn’t stay away), and wrote letters to several owners and MLBPA. I actually received a few notes back including some swag! Not that they could buy me off, but I appreciated the effort.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 8:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Yinzers are gonna freakkkkkk

When they read about that. I wouldn’t really want it at this point just because I don’t want the management team in place to change yet until they have more time to follow through on their development plan.

Plus baseball and hockey are more than a little different, so who knows how everything would come together. Plus, I want to know who is Mario’s “baseball guy” who is helping him to make all the decisions.

And Mario would not spend $100 million on the team, which I’m sure will be one of the big arguments.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 3:34 AM EST reply actions  

Again, Burkle is more then capable of spending 100 million. The guy is one of the richest people around.

And you still want an owner that is ripping of the fan base, the little fan base it has left? Not only should Nutting be banned from MLB, he should be looked into for fraud. Hopefully MLB steps in here and tells Nutting to sell or put more money into his product.

by psunate77 on Jan 30, 2010 7:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Burkle is more then capable of spending 100 million.

So is Mark Cuban and he’s said he would not pour his own money into the Pirates, he’d expect them to be profitable. Nobody does it this way. Every owner expects the team to pay for itself. The idea of owners blowing huge chunks of their own money without a financial return is a fantasy. It doesn’t happen.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Except for Manchester City

But thats a completely different continent let alone sport.

by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 30, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

That's nonsense,

They are able to say that because YES revenues are not technically part of the Yankees’ revenue stream.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Ripping off?

What’s happening now is called a successful rebuild. You know, reinforcing the core of the team with good drafts and trades, establishing young talent before shelling money into the team with big named free agents.

Every current successful team did this. There’s no reason the Pirates can’t do the same.

Oh, but, I’m sorry. It’s fraudulent to do this tactic.

by ryebr3ad on Jan 30, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

the penguins also got very very lucky

take out just one draft pick- that of sidney crosby- which they got via lottery, and you know there wouldn’t have been a stanley cup, or a finals appearance for that matter!

by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Luck was definitely a huge factor.

That said, I think Malkin and Jordan Staal make a pretty good core, Crosby or no. Some hockey pundits even argue that Malkin, not Crosby, is the best player on the team. They definitely could/would be competitive without Crosby, it’s just a matter of whether they’d be willing to sign a big free agent or make a big trade to make it all come together. (The Hossa trade shows they probably would have been.)

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 11:39 PM EST up reply actions  

not sure

you are right of course in that malkin, fleury and staal make a pretty good core, and they would have crosby’s cap space to use for free agents. Still, I don’t know if the Penguins are what they are without Crosby! Crosby has the veteran leadership and more [takes tongue out of cheek]

But anyway, I was only adding to the point of the draft being important- but good drafts + luck = championships.

by BurgherKing on Jan 30, 2010 11:57 PM EST up reply actions  

It is unfair and unresonable

to disparage the Pens for the degree of luck that they experienced. The fact is that they made shrewd decisions that allowed them to maximize the luck factor. Setting aside the Crosby & Malkin situations, their scouting and drafting decisions have been strong. They have made smart front office moves. They have had some swings and misses too, but largely the franchise has been very well run with competitive financial commitments being made at appropriate times.

Further – and this is not to in anyway disparage the Pirates who have spent 17 years trying to sell an unpolished turd – the Pens do a remarkable job of promotion. The strong feeling of kinship the community has with the team existed before 2 consecutive runs to Cup Finals and is not mere happenstance.

Just becaues the Yinzers predictably love the idea for – largely – the wrong reasons doesn’t mean that Burkle/Mario taking of the team is a bad idea.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 31, 2010 7:19 AM EST up reply actions  

not disparaging the pens

i was only adding to the idea of the draft being important by saying that luck is also a factor.

Also, unlike NHL (where the very top picks can almost go straight into the NHL), MLB is somewhat different, where top pick don’t always make it, and there is usually considerable development time involved. The Pirates, like the Pens, have drafted well, and now they need some luck- perhaps in having some unexpected picks become stars- to go from promising to contending.

i m a big fan of the Pens and ray shero and what lemieux has done for the team, but it doesn’t mean that it would just translate to baseball…

by BurgherKing on Jan 31, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Ok...

If you owned the Pirates, would you want to sell them to Mario and Burkle? I wouldn’t. As bad as they are, I wouldn’t sell them. I don’t know Bob Nutting, so I don’t know if owning the Pirates is something he always wanted to do or if he just likes the money, but if he doesn’t want to sell them then that’s his business.

Of course there would be no guarantees with Mario and Burkle. It’s not like they would suddenly spread magic “winning dust” on the team and finally make them good. It’s entirely possible and likely that the Pirates would have the same troubles under Mario and Burkle that they have now. There’s just no guarantees in sports. Sure it’d be a PR boost for a team that could use one. But the honeymoon would end and they’d have to start winning too.

by IAPiratesFan on Jan 30, 2010 6:00 AM EST reply actions  

I know that I wouldn't sell

It would be violating Business 101…Nutting would be selling on a low (we’re currently valued second lowest in the MLB I believe?) when there is potential for growth in only a few years time.

by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 30, 2010 9:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Let me be the first to suggest

1. ,unabashedly, that this would be fabulous.

2. that Charlie is missing the point when he wonders if Mario would be just as financially constrained as Nutting. While I think that is true, Mario would not be the big money man; that would be Ron Burkle (all $3.5-billion of him).

3. that Nutting is a prideful man, which I suspect would keep him from selling the team until things are turned around. If he were to sell the team today his reputation among the populace would be forever awful based strictly upon the team’s onfield performance during his time. Nutting knows this and is not okay with it.

4. I acknowledge that there might be a disruption to the current plan, but that could be good or bad. I’m thinking that the focus needs to be on the greater good of having a deep-pocketed owner. Also, I would expect that their would be nominal negative change to the bottom up building plan that is presently in place (for reasons discussed below).

5. I hope that the inevitable cautions about how having money does not guarantee success will be kept to a minimum and do not go beyond “cautions” to silly statements suggesting that more money is a bad thing.

6. Although there are no guarantees, if Burkle/Lemieux would buy the Bucs, I would anticipate that they would be much more Rooney and much less Dan Snyder. I think that they would spend more on major league payroll in fairly short order (though if they stick to the current plan, that might have a lot to do with happenstance, admittedly). But considering the history of Mario’s ownership of the Pens I think it is safe to say that Mario/Burkle would be responsible owners.

7. It is worth noting how Mario came to own the Pens, if you do not already know.
He only put together a group to buy the team after Howard Baldwin spent irresponsibly in the early 1990s, creating massive debt resulting in bankruptcy. Mario was one of if not the entity owed the most money by the team and therefore had the most to lose if the team went belly up. He essentially saved the team in order to protect his assets. He has subsequently run the team in a financially responsible way. Times were tough at first, but then the lock out lead to massive improvements in the NHL, inlcuding both rules changes for the game itself and salary cap & floor. They definitely got lucky with the lottery and timing (the opportunity to draft Malkin, for example) but they have also made some very good, critical decisions.

8. I would love to see this happen – and soon – but I know better and don’t dare to dream.

9. It is a good thing that such a reputable, local group has strong interest in buying the Bucs. I doubt it is coincidence that their interest is being expressed now instead of 2 years ago.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 30, 2010 7:31 AM EST reply actions  

#7

so we should expect an offer from Kris Benson anyday now?

Because it's a Bowl Game!!
-My wife when asked why she didn't tell me she was having contractions Jan. 1 2007

by Grainey on Jan 30, 2010 9:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Benson

threw for a coupla (unidentified) teams… [of course, if I were trying out Benson, I’d want to remain unidentified, too!]

via MLBTR.

Morosi speculates that Benson could be a target for teams who missed out on Ben Sheets, naming the Cubs, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Mariners, Nationals and Reds as possible suitors.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions  

On your No. 7

I’m not so sure about Mario as an owner. I have contended for years that he showed poor judgment by being a PLAYER-owner. Remember the reason they wound up with all those high draft picks is because the team was TERRIBLE. They were as bad or worse than the Pirates right now, just not for so long. And those teams had one valuable asset: Mario Lemieux. But by insisting he could play (and then annually getting hurt after about 20 games) he handcuffed his GM and his coaches. Ordinarily with an aging, injury prone superstar, you’d see what kind of deal you could get for him for young players or draft picks to, you know, actually help your awful team get better. But you couldn’t do that with Mario. Neither could you bench him, send him down or cut him. If he wanted to play, they had to let him, for as long as he wanted.

So while he may have “saved” hockey in Pittsburgh, he also screwed hockey in Pittsburgh for years. It’s once he got out of the way that they became good again.

As far as the “he said, she said” aspect of this story: My wife and I recently sat in a meeting with a doctor and listened to him very intently (at least I did) and then came home and talked about it and had two entirely different versions of what he had said. Not interpretations; we “heard” him say two different things. I have a hearing deficiency so I automatically figured my wife had heard him correctly, but in this case for once I was right.

So … somebody in that room was partially deaf?

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 9:47 AM EST up reply actions  

bucdaddy, bucdaddy, bucdaddy

Are you seriously contending that Craig Patrick would have even dreamed of trading Mario Lemieux??? Remember, Lemieux retired after 96-97. The team already “got nothing” for him. You honestly think that Mario, in an alternate universe where he did not own the team, would have accepted a trade after returning to the team at age 35? Or that the fanbase would have permitted it? Actually, I guess it doesn’t matter, because in that alternate universe there is no Pittsburgh Penguins for Mario to return to.

Additionally, Mario originally retired because the game, largely because of the league’s dominant style of play (the “garage league”), took too much of a physical toll on his body. He didn’t retire because he didn’t have it anymore. He returnedbecause the league was shifting, slowly, away from the clutch-and-grab 90s. He returned and was immediately one of the best players in the league. In 2002-03, he was 37 years old, playing for a godawful hockey team, missed 15 games, and still finished 8th in points, 3rd in assists. He led the league in points/game in 2001-02 and in 2002-03. Even in his last season, at age 40, he put up 22 points in 26 games on one of the worst teams to ever skate in the NHL. He certainly wasn’t hurting the team on the ice.

Mario hung on through the 00s Dark Ages for two reasons: 1) he was still aWesome and 2) to sell tickets/merchandise/TV deals (and even Mario could only sell so many). Mario retires earlier (or gets traded???) the team is gone.

The notion that it was Mario (and not the collapse of the team’s finances, the game finally passing Craig Patrick by, the parade of jokers we called “head coaches”) that’s to blame for the team’s struggles early in the decade is utter nonsense.

And I mean that as kindly as possible for one of my favorite posters around here!

by matskralc on Jan 30, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

The fact he could still play well

means Patrick could have gotten a huge haul from a contending team willing to take a chance on a fragile star in return for a shot at the Cup. It’s what any other team in any other sport would do if it were smart, and Patrick is nothing but smart. But you can’t do anything like that when your one star player is also your owner.

But whether he could still play or not, whether they could trade him or not, he still put his GM in a difficult position, and I’m thinking maybe he should have got out of the way sooner and let the team commence real rebuilding, rather than having to try to “build” every year around a notably fragile and aging star who might have one more great season in him while having to accommodate the fact that fragile star would likely miss 40-50-60 games.

It’s not an exact comparison, because Pete Rose at the end was not still a productive player, but you might recall when he was player/manager he kept putting himself in the lineup to hit .210 with no power at a power position so he could chase the hits record. He wasn’t going to bench himself, and he didn’t have a GM with the balls to get rid of him. Don’t you think that hurt the team?

Is what I’m sayin’ (thanks for the compliment, BTW).

And “to sell tickets/merchandise” while sending a bad team out on the ice while hanging on to one aging attraction … isn’t that what people accused Littlefield of?

And didn’t Mario himself (IIRC) toy with I think it was Kansas City for awhile to strong-arm for a new arena? Not that they didn’t deserve one after what the Pirates and Steelers got, but that’s all fine on the Pittsburgh end because the team stayed here. Think the people in K.C. love him?

But hey, he got his Olympic medal when he couldn’t play for the Penguins.

I’m not necessarily bad-mouthing Mario. He was a great player, and I recognize the possibility the city wouldn’t have a team at all if he hadn’t stepped in. It’s just when people want to nominate him for sainthood that I get a little irritated. They seem to have selective vision/memories.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  

Oh, one other thing

My admittedly vague memory is that when the Penguins drafted Mario he was pissed, refused to put on the jersey or the ballcap for photos. Do I have that right?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he came around to what an excellent city Pittsburgh is. Just saying the guy isn’t quite perfect, like I am ;-)

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

True

And he also smoked cigarettes, hated to work out, and had a bad work ethic at practice.

He’s since admitted as much, and said that he wished he had Crosby’s work ethic as a player. Who knows what kind of stats he would have piled up, and how his wanky back would have improved with a warrior-like workout regimen?

But to your point, it’s definitely a Pittsburgh thing to canonize your own and demonize others. It’s not a trait unique to here, as you see it everywhere. But Yinzers tend to take things to the extreme. Mario, Ben, etc. can do no wrong, even when they are. :-)

by Johnny Nez on Jan 30, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Something else I'm trying to remember

Didn’t Lemieux have something to do with instigating the player rebellion that ran off Scotty Bowman after they ran up the highest point total (119) in franchise history, a year after they won a Cup with Bowman as coach?

Jeebus, it was Scotty freakin’ Bowman.

Why, yes, I DO pick nits for a living. How did you guess?

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

I ain't no Yinzer

You take that back. Them’s fightin woids.

by matskralc on Jan 30, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions  

The Penguins didn’t commence a rebuild until Craig Patrick was gone. Even the first post-lockout year, Patrick pulled a Littlefield and brought in guys like Ziggy Palffy and John LeClair in his own little Drive for 75. The lion’s share of the blame for the 2000s Dark Ages rests squarely on Craig Patrick’s shoulders. And even then, as you’ve pointed out, the rebuild was mostly “lucking into top 2 draft picks four years in a row and nabbing 2 generational talents with those picks and 2 stars with the others”.

I just see “trade Lemeiux” along the lines of “trade Jordan” or “trade Howe”. And who’s to say, with Patrick in charge at the time, a Lemieux trade wouldn’t have just ended up like the disaster that was the Jagr trade, anyway? :-)

Don’t get me started on arenas…that’s the one thing that I would like to tear Mario a new one over (I despise taxpayer funded sports stadiums). So I like to pretend that didn’t happen. The cognitive dissonance is too much!

And to reply to you below, I’ve read much the same about Lemieux leading the ouster of Bowman. And also that he was pissed over being drafted by us. Another couple moments I wouldn’t be proud of!

by matskralc on Jan 30, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Great point about Craig Patrick. He was an out of touch GM unable to do the job anymore. One of the first orders of business for Shero made was to install internet in the offices…..in 2006.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

All them tubes is expensive.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, Mario would have had to agree to be traded. He probably would have just retired again rather than go play for, say, the Kings. My impression is that he came back to try to help the team (on the ice and also in attendance) not because he was getting all Brett Favre twitchy to play hockey anywhere he possibly could.

Regarding the arena, don’t blame Mario, blame the idiots who selected a casino group that was completely incapable of actually building and running a casino while rejecting two more fiscally sound groups that were offering to toss in a free arena as a side benefit. Instead, we get a huge fiasco that cost the taxpayers a lot of money both from missed revenues due to all the delays but also having to fund the arena.

by Aphthakid on Jan 30, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

Mario’s plan was way too logical for the government, however. They just made themselves look like fools.

On whether Mario could play…he could. He was still awesome, even though he was fragile. I saw him in Dallas in the early 2000’s. He made an impossible angle goal from the side boards right on the red line.

Truly amazing.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions  

But might he

have accepted going to, say, Montreal, or Ottawa?

It would have been an interesting situation to see what the league would have done if the Pens had tried to trade their owner. Would he have had to sell? Put his ownership in a blind trust or something? I wonder if they ever explored that possibility and decided it was too complicated.

And BTW, if Patrick really was an idiot, who was his boss?

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s tough to fire your underling when he constructed the team that won you championships back when he was your boss. It was difficult for most people to believe that Patrick had lost it so completely. It’s not like he was Dave Littlefield: he wasn’t an idiot all along. The man was one of the game’s greatest execs for years.

It’s somewhat similar to if, say, Schuerholtz had hung around longer as GM and the Braves all of a sudden lost 110 games for 5 straight years on his watch. You kind of expect him to be able to turn it around. The first post-lockout year was Patrick’s last shot, and he finally convinced everybody that he had nothing left.

Additionally, Ken Sawyer was Patrick’s boss. Lemieux/Burkle aren’t exactly from the Jerry Jones or George Steinbrenner school of ownership.

by matskralc on Jan 30, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I know that Aphthakid did not raise the subject

But the “Mario should have been traded thing” is absurd and not worthy of further discussion in my mind.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 31, 2010 7:23 AM EST up reply actions  

I wasn't saying he "should" have been traded

Only that a team in that position, a terrible team with one great (but aging and fragile) player surely would have explored a trade for draft picks or prospects. But because the aging and fragile star was the owner, the Pens were handcuffed and couldn’t do what a normal team would do.

by bucdaddy on Jan 31, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Which is relevant how

to the potential purchase of the Pirates by the folks who own the Pens?

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Jan 31, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Um, it's not, really.

I just get peeved at the canonization of Mario and like to remind people that for years, he put his team at a competitive disadvantage as a player/owner, both from the standpoint that they couldn’t cut, bench, demote or trade him, and that he forced his coach to have to find someone to fill in for him for 20 or 40 or 60 games a season. Plus I think it was somewhat disingenuous for him to use his own presence on the ice to try to sell season tickets when the likelihood was strong that the fans would only get 20 home games of Mario for their money.

All this is negated by his maneuvering to keep the team in town, though I find it ironic that people quickly forgot how he then turned around and dangled moving to K.C. in front of the fan base to force an arena deal on someone else’s dime.

by bucdaddy on Jan 31, 2010 5:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Being Bad

When Lemieux was player-owner, the team was already bad to mediocre. His comeback at least partially to spur interest in the franchise (and pad the bottom line). I do not mean that in a negative or slanderous way. It was simply a good business move, and I’ll add I don’t think money was his primary motivator; he often spoke of wanting his son Austin to see him play, now that he was old enough to watch and remember.

In hockey, the worst thing a team can do is cling to mediocrity. If you’re gonna lose, lose big. Unlike MLB and the NFL, where impact players routinely can be taken in the middle to late first round, in hockey (and basketball, for that matter) there tends to be a handful of true elite talents in each draft, then a bunch of equally solid but unspectacular players.

The Penguins did it right by being bad for an extended stretch and by extension racking up the early 1st round picks. I cannot blame Lemieux for this; if anything else, if he truly made the team “worse” it was to the franchise’s long term benefit.

Just my two cents…

by Johnny Nez on Jan 30, 2010 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

It DID work out that way

They were also lucky to be that bad when a couple-three once-in-a-generation talents happened to come on the market. That was just fortunate timing, and nothing anyone had any control over. The lockout and subsequent salary cap that allows the team to keep its good players and remain competitive now also was an accident of good timing.

Shift any of those events forward or backward a couple years and it’s probably an entirely different story. But I guess the same could be said of any team that reaches championship level.

by bucdaddy on Jan 30, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

No need to be grateful

Now that there’s what sounds like is another party willing to buy the Bucs and keep them here there is no longer a debt to Nutting for buying the team and keeping them in the Burgh. I would think it makes him spend more of his payroll to grow as other businessmen likely have adopted the view that spending more can make the Pirates successful. The whole idea of conserving so that players like Steve Pearce can have a full shot in the bigs isn’t always right. It may not necessarily be cheap, but it’s at least too conservative. They are too worried about having one of their minor league projects go somewhere else and be successful. If Huntington is as good at evaluating talent as he thinks, the “projects” don’t need so long to suck the wind out of the big league lineup.

by OldPirateFan on Jan 30, 2010 7:37 AM EST reply actions  

Poll

…on the PG site for how the public would like this move. Sure that answer’e going to be a surprise.

Wonder what it would be uf Nutting was trying to buy the Pens?

by God Loves on Jan 30, 2010 8:06 AM EST reply actions  

While I would much rather have Lemieux as owner than Nutting, it’s not because he would be able to do some hugely amazing job or something, and make us a World Series contender overnight. It’s because Lemieux is a city hero, probably the most well-known Pittsburgh athlete besides Roberto Clemente, and therefore would command the respect of fans.
The reason I’d rather have him than Nutting is because the “fans” who constantly question NH’s plan to turn us into contenders generally point to Nutting and his cheapness as the reason we’re making all these trades. But with Lemieux as owner…no one would dare to question him, and while people may silently still harbor the same doubts as they do now under Nutting, they wouldn’t air them out loud, meaning those of us who support NH’s plan would finally get a second of peace from those who don’t, and constantly complain about it.

by Akshay R on Jan 30, 2010 8:53 AM EST reply actions  

There is no way

Nutting would sell at a time when the Pirates perceived value is low. Not as low as it (not coincedently) was when he became majority owner. If he is correct with the direction the team is heading the time to sell would be in about three or four years when the team is winning more than losing and the fans are in the stands.

Buy low and sell high. The Buccos aren’t high yet. (but being high for the next season might not be a bad idea ; )

by MDBuc on Jan 30, 2010 9:11 AM EST reply actions  

forbes magazine

The data in their annual report suggests that the value of the franchise has increased significantly. Nobody knows what his financial stake is/was in the team, but it stands to reason that he’ll make a tidy profit if/when he sells the team.

by lloyd95 on Jan 30, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Every reputable baseball publication...

plus everyone in MLB baseball say that Forbes pulls there estimates out of their ass and they aren’t even in the ballpark of being close to accurate. I do agree with you that I think he has put himself in position where he would make a profit. But I also believe that he truly feels he has the ship in the right direction and this franchinse may more than double in value in a few years.

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions  

and what numbers are we to rely on

forbes is one of the few organizations that at least tries to make sense of things.

by lloyd95 on Jan 30, 2010 8:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Good point...

Hard to know since MLB or the Bucs don’t open up their books. I suppose it’s a frame of reference even if it’s a extreme overestimation.

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 10:40 PM EST up reply actions  

So your logic is “any numbers are better than no numbers,” then?

OK. By my estimate, Bob Nutting made only $1 in 2009.

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions  

you're welcome to estimate all you like

And while I’m not a big fan of Jason Stark, I tend to think he’s got a good perspective on the situation. As well as sources that are somewhat reliable. His estimate uses some sound logic.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 12:07 AM EST up reply actions  

So in a couple years we can expect a long series of posts from LemiuexHostage on how the team is cheap and needs to sign some big-time free agents?

by maguro on Jan 30, 2010 10:00 AM EST reply actions  

Winnar!

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 30, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Holy crap.

That is an awesome name. I think I should change my Post-Gazette name from BigMcLargeHuge to LemiuexHostage.

by IAPiratesFan on Jan 30, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Its amazing

that people still believe Nutting is committed to winning and spending. Its pretty obvious Neal’s hands are tied from above.

Lemieux’s ownership group would provide a very welcome change from the sideshow act that runs the Pirates right now.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 11:52 AM EST reply actions  

In the pre-salary cap days

The Pens had the lowest payroll in the NHL. Only after they got a cap and revenue sharing, and had Fleury, Malkin, and Crosby fall into their laps, were they able to increase payroll, as the team had improved and attendance increased. This is pretty much the same plan the Pirates have currently committed to.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Thats a valid point if MLB was in any way as financially insecure as the NHL was at the time of its lockout. Obviously we don’t have official numbers, but its safe to say Mario and company wasn’t pocketing money at the time of their struggles and using it to further other areas of wealth. There was even debate as to whether the Penguins could be profitable in Mellon arena right now while spending to the cap limits.

With the mounting evidence as to how much money the Pirates took into last year before selling a single ticket, I’m just unsure as to how anyone can stand behind the current owner and plan. I’m not asking them to go out and on a marquee free agent, but there’s still way too much evidence of penny pinching at the expense of a quality major league team.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

People who make this argument can never answer this question...

If the Pirates are 29th in attendance, and 26th in market size, shouldn’t it be expected that the Pirates have a payroll in the range of 27th or 28th?

Doesn’t that just make sense if the Pirates are spending about the same percentage of revenue as most other teams? Revenue sharing is a narrowing factor on revenue disparity, correct? No team can leapfrog any other team on the revenue totem pole.

Please answer that question before you expect us to believe Nutting is pocketing millions of dollars. For the past 5 years, the Pirates have always been 27th, 28th or 29th in attendance, and have been in the same range of payroll as well.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Since when is MLB a gate driven league like the NHL is? A large, large majority of an NHL team’s revenues come from how many fans they draw.

Its not the same in the MLB. Payroll does not necessarily have to be commensurate with attendance. And investment in an MLB franchise goes far and beyond major league payroll, more so than any other league. When the Pirates earn $80 to $90 million dollars in revenue sharing, central fund revenues, and television money combined before selling a single ticket, yet we only see $50 million of that at most invested in all aspects of the team, theres a problem.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually, from the Pirates’ perspective, MBL is worse than a gate-driven sport. Non-gate revenues, especially broadcast revenues, are even more unbalanced than gate revenues. The revenue structure in MLB cuts in favor of Mark’s argument, not against it.

And as Mark pointed out, revenue sharing and central fund monies reduce the discrepancies some, but they don’t change the revenue “standings.” The #29 team in revenue before these funds are distributed is still going to be the #29 team in revenue afterwards.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I understand other teams make more money. Does that in any way exclude our team from pulling a profit though?

Why is everyone so hung up on the rankings and such? The investment in the team does not in any way coincide with the amount of money the team receives before selling a ticket.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Heh...

glad it wasn’t just me!

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Simply

The level of investment (payroll, amateur draft, international signings, hiring of coaches) back into the team is not a large enough percentage of the revenue being taken in. Thats all I’m trying to say. You can spin the rankings all you want, but it doesn’t make it look any better.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions  

The level of investment (payroll, amateur draft, international signings, hiring of coaches) back into the team is not a large enough percentage of the revenue being taken in.

What is the percentage? How do you know?

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Its pretty clear

The team takes in at least $80 million in revenue sharing, central funds, and broadcasting deals. Do you care to explain where all that money goes? Because outspending teams by a mere million dollars in the first year amateur draft doesn’t make up for other shortcomings in investment.

A team like the Pirates needs to take the risk on a Scheppers or a Sano.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re the one claiming they’re not spending a large enough % of their revenue. You explain what you base that on.

If they weren’t spending the revenue sharing money to improve the team, the union could file a grievance, and they have the right to audit the Pirates’ books. Dejan has explained all this repeatedly. If you think it’s so clear that they’re not spending the money, you explain what evidence supports you.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Ha

I feel as though the burden of proof is on your side my friend. The numbers don’t lie. The team hasn’t come close to spending anywhere close to the $80 million per year (a very very generous baseline figure) when you look at payroll, draft bonuses, international signings, etc.

As far as MLB investigating the Pirates goes. Well its no secret that Selig is giving his friend Coonelly every chance to see this through before anything is done. Other teams are not happy though, that much is certain.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

OK, so we’ve established that you’ve got nothing to go on other than insinuations about Selig and Coonelly. (How exactly does that explain THE UNION not going after the Pirates? Pretty odd conspiracy theory—Bud, Frank and the union. I bet they faked the moon landings, too.) Major league payroll, draft bonuses and international signings aren’t anywhere near the Pirates’ only expenses. Dejan has reported extensively on that, too.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 6:37 PM EST up reply actions  

It still doesn’t add up. And I like Dejan, but too many people take his word as the be all end all. Give it time, I’m sure the union will get there.

Do you care to show where all that money goes? Or are you just going to take their word for it? Because that seems about as silly as some of your other accusations.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re the one making accusations you can’t even begin to back up. I’m just asking what basis you have, and you have no answers.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually it adds up perfectly.

The revenue disparity of all MLB teams can be expressed by 3 things: the market size, their attendance and their stadium deal.

Every revenue source that makes a difference in how much a team takes in over any other teams is completely dependent on those three things.

The stadium deal is significant, but since almost all teams now have new stadiums with favorable deals, that factor has been minimized except for the teams that don’t have that.

Revenue sharing and national revenue are both narrowing factors on revenue disparity that make no difference on where each team lands on the revenue totem pole.

The obvious truth is that if a team like the Pirates in #26 in market size and #28 or #29 in attendance, they SHOULD be #27 or #28 in payroll.

Since in the last 5 years they have been consistently 27th (3x) or 28th (2x) in payroll, this just shows they are exactly where you would expect them to be if they were spending the league average percentage of their revenues on payroll.

Furthermore, if you compare each team to the league average attendance and league average payroll, you can find out how much the average team would spend on payroll given their attendance. When you do this, you find out exactly how well attendance correlates to the payroll each team has.

I have done this, and I can tell you that in reality, attendance correlates extremely closely to payroll. In general, the only teams that significantly outspend what the average team would spend given their attendance are the large market teams that gain a significant portion of revenue from their local cable networks that they own themselves.

Given the Pirates attendance in 2009, the average team would have spent $53M on payroll. The actual amount they spent was $48M.

Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, the Post-Gazette independently decided that the Pirates had made an average profit of $5.5M over the past 2 years.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 7:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Can someone please send me a link...

to this $80 million in revenue sharing that the Pirates are getting. I could swear I remember Coonely saying that figure was ridiculously off. I could be misremembering but I don’t think I am. I’d really like to know because of seen this $80 million figure thrown around a couple of different places.

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

It's not $80M in revenue sharing

That is the total amount of revenue sharing PLUS national media revenue PLUS local TV revenue.

That sounds like a lot of money until you realize the Pirates only take in about $26M in ticket sales.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions  

That is still $106 million at minimum to work with to “struggle” to pay out their $40 million payroll.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions  

so if we continue

$50M in player salary
$15M in minor leagues
$9M in draft

that’s $74M of $106M that we’ve taken a stab at…

What’s the other $32M doing?

Interest payments on stadium, FO staff, pensions etc…

Also, MID – what do you think of Stark’s assessment?

by lloyd95 on Jan 30, 2010 9:01 PM EST up reply actions  

You're assuming a lot

That the $106 million is accurate being the biggest.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 9:22 PM EST up reply actions  

no doubt...

Do you have a better number? What do you think of Stark’s numbers?

by lloyd95 on Jan 30, 2010 9:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I think

I’m not crazy about Stark’s launching point being Boras or that he’s pro-payroll floor.

As for the numbers, even Stark has some doubt about them, so I don’t know what to think.

I do know the Pirates have said they can spend more on the MLB payroll so I’m not trying to dispute that either though. I just think people generally overestimate the “other” costs of running a franchise beyond the obvious (MLB payroll and draft).

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions  

or rather

underestimate, not overestimate.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Even reading through the Q&A

Fran Coonelly: “Every team that receives revenue-sharing dollars, you have to provide a report to baseball on how you used it. I think that’s why we haven’t heard from that and not because of my relationship [with Bud Selig].”

I think until the union/MLB actually do something, I will assume no “pocketing of the monies” is going on as so many like to believe. Plus, as others have said, Nutting has to answer to other owners of the team as well — he can’t just take money without passing it by others.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Find me an average skilled accountant I will find a lot of ways to hide money. Give the union time. There have been rumblings about a Pirate investigation

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions  

The only rumblings have been by people who wish there was an investigation, but who have no say in it. As Dejan has reported, his source – one on the inside of the Florida investigation – has said that the Pirates are not being targeted.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions  

You can assume the worst Deadstar

But you’ve been acting like you have indisputable facts etc. and that’s not the case — not to mention throwing a reporter, who is there to report facts, under the bus. Making accusations does no good unless there’s more there to make a conversation out of it.

All you’ve really said is wait for the union to find the “smoking gun” like it’s some sort of inevitability.

No one is saying they would turn the other way if the Nuttings were pocketing money, it’s just that some people are willing to not jump to conclusions because they’re angry about the product on the field.

by Slizeezyc on Jan 30, 2010 9:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Until there are indisputable facts the other way, how can you go on trusting in these people to run this historical franchise as anything more than their personal piggy bank? Especially when there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. If this was a publicly traded company, Nutting would have tanked worse than his newspaper business is.

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

What circumstantial evidence are you talking about? The only factual evidence circumstantial or otherwise is what I have already given you, and that says they spend right along the same lines as the average team given their revenue.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

They spend alone the lines according to your rankings system which is just nonsense. Replace the rankings with real numbers please. You cant because no one knows what the real numbers are. But here is an actual source telling us the team receives $80 million before it even sold a ticket. Until they open their books, the last decade has showed us to be skeptical at best. Its amazing that 17 years has past yet people still believe the stuff that is printed by Dejan. I respect Dejan as a reporter, but when your best source is the team pulling the sleight of hand, its hard to put a lot of stock into whats being written. Its fine to be skeptical. The fans deserve answers after this long.

More talk of the Pirates being targeted.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings010129

by Deadstar on Jan 30, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Those numbers have been debunked,

On this blog and elsewhere. I believe Stark assumed money that goes into a players’ fund was going to teams, which wasn’t the case.

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 11:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

just a thought

Have numbers ever been “bunked” as opposed to debunked?

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 12:08 AM EST up reply actions  

What is it about the phrase “the average team with the Pirates’ attendance would spend $53M on payroll” that you don’t understand?

If logic is nonsense to you, that’s probably not something you want to admit on this board.

I want to be clear – I am not disputing that the Pirates could receive around $80M between their revenue sharing check ($30M), their national MLB money ($35M) and their local TV contract ($15M).

The point that you and the columnists you are referencing are missing is that absolutely no conclusion can be drawn from that number as to the payroll level the Pirates can afford.

The reason is you have no idea what the expenses are that an MLB team incurs besides payroll.

In other sports leagues, payroll accounts for between 40% and 55% of total revenue. Since MLB has the minor leagues to fund, it’s probably 40% or less. Let’s just assume it’s 40%.

Let’s take your $80M and assume it is correct. Now we add the stadium based revenue. I know that the Brewers have a per attendee revenue stream of around $40. I don’t know what the Pirates is, but let’s assume it’s the same, even though it is most certainly less.

That would add about $60M to the $80M revenue figure to make $140M. This is actually pretty close to Forbes’ estimate of $144M that the Pirates took in in 2008. Of course, they had higher attendance then.

Interestingly, if you subtract $80M from $144M and divide by the Pirates attendance in 2008, you get an average per client revenue of $39.77. So, that $40 per person could be pretty close.

OK, so now we are guestimating revenue of about $140M. So, since we guess that MLB teams probably spend 40% of total revenue on payroll, we take 40% of $140M and we get $56M that the Pirates should spend on payroll.

By my other method, I estimated around $53M.

Now, interestingly, I just plugged in the final attendance figures from the Pirates into my formula, and it seems they drew better towards the end of the season than when I initially calculated the attendance during the season.

That raised their per game attendance 1K to 19.5K which brought the total payroll that the “average” team would have had given their attendance to…$56M.

So there. We’ve done 2 different types of calculations using numbers which are as close to real as we can get, which also uses your $80M figure, and also conforms to the Forbes’ estimate, and we get the same amount.

The Pirates probably could have spent $56M, but only spent $48M.

Big whoop-die-doo.

I think with any kind of objectivity on your part, you can see that spending $56M instead of $48M is not going to change the Pirates’ fortunes a ton.

In addition, they’ve made capital improvements to facilities and purchased a minor league team.

The Pirates claim these expenditures were slightly more than the profit they took in, and considering these figures, there’s no reason to doubt them.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 1:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Disclaimer....

I just found a reference that in MLB, player salaries are at 52% of league revenue. So, that makes my calculation above based on that incorrect.

This shows me I shouldn’t be doing calculations “off the cuff” here in the comments, and make sure I’m more thorough like I normally am.

This will be an interesting study also, and I’ll post results back at some point.

The impression I have initially is that poorer teams probably spend less than 52% and rich teams probably spend more. The minors have a lesser variation of money spent than does MLB payroll, so that would be logical.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 2:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Thanks for your input – and yes, I appreciate the logic and was hoping that you could comment on Stark’s numbers/rationale. And while you are going to recalculate your numbers I would say that a difference of $56M and $48M is not insignificant. Heading into the ’10 season that gap is significantly higher (no need to explain, I get it).

Another interesting study would be to look at the Yankees revenues/spending/attendance in the 90’s and try to determine the cause/effect of the leap from mediocrity to superiority in a variety of ways. Was it the YES network deal? Not necessarily instructive for the PBC, but interesting nonetheless.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 9:06 AM EST up reply actions  

I should stress that I do not claim that figuring out a team’s attendance/payroll correlation is going to be accurate within $5M. It really should not be that accurate. I’ve been surprised how accurate it has been this past season as different teams came out and either mentioned something about their payroll or did something that coincided perfectly with what I was seeing in the data.

The only thing I would say for sure is that if the correlation is off by over 10%, there could be something to look at, and if it is off by 20%, then I feel comfortable saying a team could either add payroll or needs to trim it. This, of course, if there aren’t other circumstances that you know bring in serious revenue for them.

The Pirates correlation has only been about -5%. That is a big difference from the Marlins -18% which got them into trouble.

On the Yankees, they were at or near the top in payroll, but still in the pack, until YES came on board in the early 2000’s. They went from being only $3M ahead of the #2 payroll in 2001 to $35M ahead in 2003 to $80M ahead in 2005.

So, YES made a huge difference there.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay – good info…

What do the numbers say about a team that is consistently in that -5% range – are they tight? frugal? wise?

You’ve looked at the numbers – is that the case with the PNC Bucs? Or otherwise?

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I would say that is within the normal range. Others in that range: Arizona (-2), Reds (-1), Orioles (-3), Rays (-3), Angels (-4), Nationals (-8), Royals (+8), Rangers (-11).

Some of the ones that stuck out to me this year were the Indians (21) and Tigers (31). They were the only teams who were spending at a rate that couldn’t be explained by large market media money. Of course, both had to dump payroll during the year.

On the other hand, the Cards, Brewers, Giants, Twins and Dodgers certainly have room to add payroll.

I would say the Dodgers are in no payroll danger regardless of the ownership situation unless there’s something funny going on.

All those other teams have major stars that are going to be eating a good portion of that payroll flexibility if they can re-sign them.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Trades of Granderson and Jackson were Detroits big moves. Granderson – got Austin Jackson and Phil Coke. Granderson’s productive, but has big gaps in his game. Bad routes, hi strike out numbers, low OBP and struggles vs LHP. Austin Jackson was a premier prospect in the Yanks system and will step in as a probable defensive upgrade in CF with decent offensive production. Phil Coke is a serviceable/good lefty reliever. Scherzer is all that Edwin Jackson is as a pitcher. Dan Schlereth has a good chance of becoming a closer.

I’d argue that this was a very good trade for the Detroit organization and not the salary dump that you imply.

I’ll look at the Indians transactions and see if their moves are similar.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

They may still be good baseball moves in the end. But they were indeed brought about by the team losing money. This was written about extensively in both the Detroit and Cleveland press.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 6:30 PM EST up reply actions  

I really have to say . . . .

This “pocketing money” stuff shows a complete ignorance of how partnerships work. The Nuttings are NOT free to withdraw money from the Pirates because IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY. It belongs to the partnership. They can’t withdraw money except as distributions in which all the partners share. And Dejan has reported that the partners haven’t received distributions, which pissed them off so much that they walked out of the last partnership meeting once it was announced there’d be no distributions.

Oh, but of course, Dejan is just a management shill who reports stuff that isn’t true. We know this because . . . . . . . . . well, because the FO bashers say so.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Add to that the fact that there are reports that some minority owners of the Pirates have complained (and even walked out of ownership meetings) because Nutting has not allowed anyone to take dividends – not even to pay the taxes they owe on their ownership stake.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 9:48 PM EST up reply actions  

My god...

You two destroyed Deadstar. Just my two cents…

by ryebr3ad on Jan 31, 2010 2:04 AM EST up reply actions  

+1 for the Dumb and Dumber reference.

Was that you that hit the Fletch reference in another thread? If so we have very similar taste for movie classics!

by Slick1 on Jan 31, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks, yes that was me on the Fletch call too. I’ll do my best to interject some levity into these discussions.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

BTW, I’m not saying the Pirates only take in $106M in revenue. There is also concession revenue on top of that, which would add another $10-$15 or so per ticket, as well as marketing rights, etc.

We can never sit here and put together even a reasonably accurate budget for the Pirates. It’s just not possible.

The only thing we can do is see if the Pirates are acting within the bounds of what other teams do, and the answer to that question is absolutely yes.

On Stark’s idea for a minimum payroll threshold…

The luxury tax threshold is roughly double the average payroll. If it were set at half the average payroll, that would put it at around $40M – $43M or so this year.

As the Yankees are the only team to routinely have to pay the luxury tax, the Marlins would be the only team to routinely have to pay the poverty tax.

That might be a way to go, but instead they have the system where the union audits the statements and can file a grievance. They have now done that with the Marlins finally.

Obviously, this coming year would be the first year the Pirates have fallen below that, and in Stark’s vision of that idea, they would not have to pay, since he makes allowance for lowering payroll in a rebuilding year.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 30, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions  

There's also...

money spent upgrading the Bradenton facilites as well as the building of the Academy in the Dominican. Those are significant expenses.

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Those didn’t really happen. Dejan just made them up, along with the accounts of the moon landings.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Considering how often Dejan’s reporting gets dismissed without any reasons given whenever the FO bashers find it inconvenient, I make no apologies.

by WTM on Jan 31, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions  

I’m a fan of Dejan and think he does a great job of reporting and analysis. No need to make apologies – I enjoy your consistency and tenacity.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Thanks...

that was my point. The $80 million figure is being thrown around as if that’s our take from the collective pot which is completely not true.

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions  

you think it’s closer to $90M?

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 12:18 AM EST up reply actions  

heh...

I know and I have to admit that I would really like to know what our take is.

by Slick1 on Jan 31, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

The burden of proof is on WTM’s side? How? He hasn’t made a claim, he’s just questioned yours. How can the burden of proof be on his side if he hasn’t made any claim needing to be proved?

You claim that the Pirates aren’t spending a large enough percentage of their revenue. How do you know?

http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates

by Nate Rose on Jan 30, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know if anybody cares,

but they’re having a discussion about this over on the PensBurgh blog as well.

Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....

"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One

by blackjackfishtaco on Jan 30, 2010 12:32 PM EST reply actions  

If Lemieux/Burkle bought the Pirates, they could:

a) stick with NH’s plan, which would not involve raising payroll significantly until a couple/few years from now,

b) “stick” with NH’s plan, but encourage him to sign the Hollidays and Wolfs of the next free agent class to supplement the young core, or

c) fire NH and get Gillick or somebody to build a champion with a bigger payroll.

As I see it, b) and c) just can’t work in Pittsburgh, unless Burkle’s content to hemorrhage money. You just can’t build a good franchise through free agency unless you’re in a big market. Even then, it’s really hard (e.g., the Mets). So the option we’re left with, if we want any hope at building a consistently competitive team, is option A, which you can do with either Nutting or Lemieux.

So I don’t really think there’s any reason to be upset with Nutting’s ownership at this point, and my concern is that Lemieux/Burkle would get too hands-on and either replace NH or pressure him into inefficient FA signings.

by epoc on Jan 30, 2010 12:57 PM EST reply actions  

Update from the PBC Blog

As owner of the Pirates, Mario Lemieux would be able to convince MLB to institute a salary cap.

by biggyv on Jan 30, 2010 1:52 PM EST reply actions  

That’s right!! Nobody else in MLB has ever thought of a salary cap!! Lemieux could bring fresh ideas to the sport! And he used to be a player so he could persuade the union to accept it!!!

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe he could....

I dunno, convince the Braves to give us Jason Heyward for Daniel Moskos. Mario Lemieux is god and therefore can make anything unreasonable happen.

by IAPiratesFan on Jan 30, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

What this story makes apparent...

is that the Nuttings plan on running this team (or running it into the ground) for a long time. We know Cuban had an interest…Greenburg was interested in a piece (I believe) and now the Burkle/Lemieux group. That’s at least 3 individuals or groups that had the wherewithal to purchase the team and were flatly rebuffed.

So…for better…or worse…ownership is not going anywhere…barring a plane crash…for a long time.

by Thunder on Jan 30, 2010 2:48 PM EST reply actions  

Gotta love the timing...

I’m at FanFest, and Frank Coonelly is beginning the “Ask Pirates Management” segment by commenting on the report, and the first question is from (yet another) uninformed fan who thinks the Pirates have oodles of money from revenue sharing. Why am I not surprised that this story was published today?

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 4:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Keep posting about the Q&A...

they have been pretty informative so far!

by Slick1 on Jan 30, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Pretty standard fare...

So far, it’s been:

-Nutting is cheap
-Why not more vets? (AKA I dream of Mientkiewicz)
-Can we trust you after the McLouth trade?
-What can vet pitchers teach young pitchers?

I had a question for Neal last night about Tim Alderson’s velocity, and I think it made me look like the smartest fan in the room.

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 4:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Okay then!

I don’t remember NH’s exact words, but he said he wasn’t going to alter Alderson’s delivery (he considers it an advantage for Alderson because it adds deception) and that he feels the velocity drop came from throwing so many innings and playing in the PCL, which he described as a “nightmare” for pitchers. He also talked about how the team plans on building up Alderson’s lower body strengh. It convinced me that the reports of Alderson’s demise have been exaggerated, to say the least.

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 4:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Thanks

One odd thing, though. Alderson’s never played in the PCL. He was in the Eastern League both before and after the trade. The Giants’ AA affiliate is Connecticut.

by WTM on Jan 30, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s a weird answer! Alderson has never played in the PCL. Maybe Huntington was referring to the California League, but Alderson pitched very well there in 2008.

by Charlie on Jan 30, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually, you and WTM are right—it was the California League. (Now I wish I had recorded or written down the answer; He gave me a great answer, but I was tired [I woke up at six a.m. to get there] and couldn’t remember all of it.)

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 6:26 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Alderson

himself touches a bit on his velocity “issues” in his interview over at Baseball America.

It’s free so check it out here if you haven’t already.

He specifically talks about the lower body workouts to improve velocity.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 30, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Bottom half of my post was cut off

Also, I’m not saying that DK sat on the news until this weekend, but if the source came to him recently, he should have really questioned the timing—and really, the motivation—of the source.

by Kidspud on Jan 30, 2010 4:15 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Nutting, you ass clown, you had your shot. It’s time for either Mario and Burkle to take the reigns, or sell the team to Mark Cuban like he’s wanted to do for years. Pirates fans want a winning team!

A bee in a bird's nest never made no honey, and a bird in a hive sang no song.

by AlexStitch on Jan 31, 2010 12:49 AM EST reply actions  

Wow, you’ve made such a strong case for your viewpoint. It’s too bad minds like yours weren’t around when Art Rooney failed to lead the Steelers to a championship by 1936, which would have given him the same amount of time that you’ve given Nutting.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 1:20 AM EST up reply actions  

not to desecrate hallowed ground… but weren’t the Steelers a laughingstock until Dan Rooney took over control of the business? (cringing in expectation of lightning/earthquake and some signficant chastisement)

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions  

From 1933 to 1971, a span of 39 seasons, the Steelers posted 7 winning seasons, appearing in one postseason, and zero championships. They won 1 or 2 games in a season 9 times (seasons varied between 10 and 14 games), including a stretch from 1938-1941 when they went 2-9, 1-9, 2-7, 1-9.

The Pirates, despite The Streak, have 15 winning seasons, 8 playoff appearances, and 2 championships in the last 39 seasons.

by matskralc on Jan 31, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly, and that's what I was getting at.

I have presented this parallel and I think it’s striking.

Art Rooney never won anything. He tried to win, he wanted to win, but he didn’t know how.

It was only when Dan Rooney took over many football operations in the 60s that the Steelers laid the foundations for their titles. Dan was the guy who did it, and he came from an accounting background. He educated himself and found someone in Noll whose philosophy he trusted. Build from within. Draft well. Get guys with good football tools and teach them well.

It took several years before Dan could fire the previous coach and bring in his guy, because he respected him and didn’t want to break his contract. Then it took several years to start to see real results with Noll and their draft picks.

It really is a striking parallel to how Bob Nutting took over from his father and what is going on right now with the Pirates.

The only real difference is that Noll did not want to trade for prospects from other teams because he said he didn’t want to take on players that were damaged already. In the NFL, you don’t have to wait so long for guys to make an impact after you draft them, so that’s obviously a big difference that would influence the strategy in MLB.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions  

wow

That is a striking parallel and will light a candle in front of my Clemente 3000th hit poster (and Jobu too if that works) that we have success along the lines of the Dan Rooney Steelers. Heck, there was no cap in football until 1994. Not an apples to apples comparison – but a glimmer to hope for.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Art Rooney actually tried to “buy” a title a couple of times, but he was never successful. I think the big difference between him and Nutting in the eyes of the Pittsburgh media is that Rooney had the rep of a gambling horse racing enthusiast, and Nutting has the rep of a cheapskate newspaper owner.

I wonder which one the Pittsburgh columnists are going to cut more slack?

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Plus, Rooney was a Pittsburgh guy, and Nutting hails from the distant south suburb of Wheeling, WV.

As for Rooney trying to buy a title, he did a little better bringing in Buddy Parker than the Pirates did with Jim Tracy.

by Traco Bucco on Jan 31, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Hi Mark in Dallas. I was just giving my opinion as a fan; why re-hash what has already been said. Over and over. In my opinion, sell the team. Short and sweet. But thanks for trying to act tough.

Don’t only two things come from Texas- steers and queers? Which are you?

A bee in a bird's nest never made no honey, and a bird in a hive sang no song.

by AlexStitch on Jan 31, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Nothing like the 'it's my opinion' defense.

We know it is. We’re telling you why it’s foolish.

by ryebr3ad on Jan 31, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow.

You just get stronger and stronger in your arguments. Maybe Charlie could offer you a permanent position here. If you’re that strong in the short format, I can’t wait to see what you could do in a 500 word essay.

by MarkInDallas on Jan 31, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

probably not the best way to go there alex

MID is very active here, fair minded and well rounded. He takes a pro-front office position and backs it up with logic, data and reason. You may not agree with him, but a personal attack is unwarranted.

I don’t think some of the responses below are appropriate either.

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Zach Duke and Ross Ohlendorf came from Texas, as well. Not to mention Mean Joe Greene, Doug Drabek, and Buddy Dial. Moreover, you should leave the “steers and queers” line to R. Lee Ermey. “You didn’t scare me! Work on it!”

by Traco Bucco on Jan 31, 2010 7:33 PM EST up reply actions  

You forgot about Chuck Norris...

he was a Texas Ranger! He is so tough he has a fist for a chin! He so tough that Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas! He so tough that when the Boogeyman goes to sleep he looks under the bed to see if Chuck Norris is there! He is so tough he can piss his name in concrete! He so tough….ok I’m bored with this.

by Slick1 on Jan 31, 2010 7:56 PM EST up reply actions  

he can slam a revolving door

by lloyd95 on Jan 31, 2010 8:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Carnac-ing the Pirates
Small
Fire John Russell
Small
Can the Pirates Afford to Win?
Small
I Am Not A Financial Journalist, But...
Small
The Bottom

Recent FanPosts

Aaugh_small
Just to give you an idea
Conquer_the_flag_small
2011: Altoona and Indy
Mendenhall_small
Community Prospect #8
Small
Perception v. reality
Small
Cutch or Tabata?
Small
The 1b/RF 2011 Mix
Pitt_gnome_small
What JR's missing
Small
Minor League Open Thread
4th_id_patch_small
What's up with Nyjer??
Mendenhall_small
Community Prospect #7

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Colorado Rockies' Carlos Gonzalez, left, and Ubaldo Jimenez, right, celebrate in the dugout after Gonzalez hits his second home run of the game in the sixth inning of a baseball game against the San Francisco Giants at Coors Field in Denver on Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. The Rockies won 6-1. (AP Photo/Chris Schneider)

Five Numbers: Carlos Gonzalez's Home Dominance, Baseball's Wave Of Flamethrowers, And More

WASHINGTON - AUGUST 26:  Albert Pujols #5 of the St. Louis Cardinals hits a home run in the fourth inning against the Washington Nationals at Nationals Park on August 26 2010 in Washington DC. It was the 400th home run of his career. (Photo by Greg Fiume/Getty Images) link

In Progress: Cardinals Aim To End Skid Vs. Rival Reds

Washington Nationals' Nyjer Morgan, center, is led off the field after a brawl during the sixth inning of a baseball game against the Florida Marlins, Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010, in Miami. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee) +8 updates

Nyjer Morgan Suspended Eight Games For Recent Infractions, Including Role In Brawl

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie