Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: 2012 Budweiser Shootout Entry List Released

Pirates Release Financial Information

In response to an apparent leak of financial information to the AP, the Pirates have released a bunch of information themselves in an effort to explain anything that might seem strange before other people get to it.

I know Bob Nutting is the devil and all, but assuming this matches the information the AP eventually releases, none of this really gives anyone much to scream about. The Pirates made about $5 million last year. They made more in 2007 and 2008, but there was a "multilayered distribution" of about $20 million in 2008 that Nutting and Frank Coonelly say was partly used to help the owners pay taxes on team profits and partly used to repay the Nutting family for a loan they made to the Pirates in 2003, the year the Bucs' messy finances forced them to trade Aramis Ramirez.

I suppose that when the AP report comes out, we'll probably find out if all of this is true, but in any case, there doesn't seem to be much in here that matches the usual narrative about Nutting rubbing the Pirates' money all over his body. Any accountants out there, let me know if I'm wrong.

UPDATE: Here's the AP report, which indeed looks really bad, but also doesn't contain anything that contradicts anything the Pirates are saying and features a couple of really weird non-sequiturs:

Coonelly, previously an attorney for MLB, defended the Pirates' right to make a profit, but said he would not stay with the team if he suspected any Pirates funds were being channeled to ownership.

"I would not have left the commissioner's office if I wasn't convinced that Bob Nutting was committed to putting a winning product on the field," he said. "I would not have left the commissioner's office and I wouldn't remain at the Pirates if the Pirates were simply generating resources to fund other businesses."

Still, fans and critics ask how a team that won five World Series from 1909-1979 and nine division titles from 1969-92 can be so bad.

One of the more interesting bits, however, is an ominous comment from Frank Coonelly that "you can win without an $80 million payroll," as San Diego and Tampa Bay have. Well, sure, you can, but the Padres are a surprise team that has about 40 pitchers playing out of their minds, and the Rays' payroll has risen to $72 million this year to pay for guys like Carlos Pena, Carl Crawford and Rafael Soriano. It's possible to have a winning season with a $40 million payroll if you're smart and very lucky, sure, but good luck sustaining the winning after that one season. 

Bob Nutting has promised that when the Pirates are ready to compete, he'll raise the payroll to be competitive with the Brewers and Reds. Well, the Brewers have a $90 million payroll this year, and the Reds' is $76 million. I don't think it's really relevant whether the Pirates can compete without an $80 million payroll, because they've already basically promised to raise the payroll that high when they have a competitive core.

UPDATE 12:59 AM: This is already being spun by the papers - not by the folks who actually write the articles (which were much easier to understand than they might've been, actually), but by whoever writes the headlines. The Trib's front page currently reads: "Losing's not so bad: The Pirates, holder of the all-time major sports futility streak, made $34.8 million over the past three years." The Post-Gazette's headline is "Losers on the diamond, Pirates win at the bank."

It's true that the Pirates made $34.8 million, but they (apparently) used $20 million of that to pay down taxes and debt. There also (again, apparently) haven't been any distributions since then, meaning that none of the owners (including Bob Nutting) have had payments to offset taxes on the team's profits. So while the team has been profitable, I can't imagine the last couple of years have been any fun for the owners. 

The point is not that these headlines are wrong, really, but they misrepresent the big picture in a way that reinforces the popular narrative that Bob Nutting is evil. Maybe he really is a horrible human being, but this report hasn't revealed a whit of evidence to that effect, unless you're crying a river over the minority owners not getting distributions to offset their taxes. There's no evidence that ownership is getting rich(er) here. Just the opposite, actually.

Comment 412 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m not an accountant, but there’s nothing in here for the FO critics to take any comfort in. In fact, it looks like Nutting TRIED to commit more of his own money to the team but the minority partners stopped him.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 5:47 PM EDT reply actions  

I have a degree in accounting, but didn’t pay attention enough to be helpful.

But just think of what that $5 million could have bought payroll-wise. Or the $20 million, we could have had both Jeff Suppan and Mike Cameron.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 5:47 PM EDT reply actions  

If it appears as though the Pirates won't have money in a few years....

….when the young players they are now signing and those playing in Pittsburgh begin to become expensive, the team is likely to have an attendance spike that corresponds to the renewal of the team’s winning ways. Increasing attendance will be one source of the funds needed to pay these players. Another source: Some of the money now spent on the draft can be allocated to the ML payroll. A third source: Increasing secondary revenue (from parking fees, souvenirs, television rights, etc.). So, a quick selling of the good young talent need not happen.

A five to six year championship run starting in 2013 is both possible and desirable. This degree of excellence would be impossible for the Pirates if Nutting and Coonelly were following the McClatchifield methods of the past.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 5:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Parking

Supposedly, according to DK, this is one of the factors that keeps the Pirates from making as much money as teams like the Brewers adn Rangers that have endless fields of parking lots surrounding the stadium. Because it is a walkable downtown stadium and there are many garages around teh stadium not owned by the team they mostly miss out on what is a big revenue source for a lot of teams.

On this not, it was a HUGE deal that isnt talked about as much regarding the Ryan groups revised bid to buy the Rangers. Their initial deal included all of the lots around the stadium, but the later deal that came after the bidding war does not. So not as sweet of a deal for them even if the total number appears similar

RIP NATE. RIP TONY PLUSH.

"I'D BE A CHEF"

-TONY PLUSH

by GTrain on Aug 22, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've taken enough accounting classes to know

if you really wanted to hide money, you can. That being said, I appreciate them making an effort to disclose this information.

by Deadstar on Aug 22, 2010 5:52 PM EDT reply actions  

It seems that someone leaked the information to the AP...

…and this forced the team to produce a report that might control the damage the leaked information could cause.

It’s possible for clever number crunchers to hide money, but there is no evidence now that indicates that that has happened here.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jeez, can you believe the money they were pocketing? No way LaRoche and Wilson should have received that much coin.

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 5:57 PM EDT reply actions  

what I hear

   Is bob nutting personal business expenses may come into ? , also a lot of borrowing from peter " pbc" to pay paul " nutting other businesses ’ seems to have the minority owners up in arms. The minority owners have to pay taxes on profits they never see and bob nutting treats the pbc like his own personal piggy bank. I smell a criminal indictment in the works.

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 6:09 PM EDT reply actions  

Submit this completely ridiculous idea to the scriptwriters, and maybe we’ll see a “based on” episode next year!

by CptnAwesome on Aug 22, 2010 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I smell a criminal indictment in the works.

Put down the crack pipe…

by maguro on Aug 22, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don’t you mean you smale a criminal indictment?

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

A criminal indictment for what?

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 Aug 22, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

follow the money

 and you will see some very very creative accounting practices , 5 million on a “academy” in the dominican republic give me a break. You could build a small village in the dr for that kind of money. Seems like some money may have been pocketed some cashola in that transaction. Also for what I’m hearing there seems to be about 125% of the pirates sold to investors based on the numbers I have seen.

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

You could build a small village in the dr for that kind of money.

What do you think the academy is?

by matskralc on Aug 22, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

looks like an

la fittness with some ball fields in the back. 5 million please….

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm guessing that Lebanese meatloaf you're into...

… has juice of the opium poppy mixed up inside it.

"I choose to gamble with my life

Twice the risk, four times the prize

Nothing knocks me over"

by lighthouse913 on Aug 22, 2010 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

oh god, a nutting alt

congrats on being douchey enough to quote yourself in your sig

by eyeofhorus777 on Aug 22, 2010 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

This means we could have spent $5.9 million more of PURE PROFIT on the roster!!!!

Then, just add like $50 million that the greedy son of a gun should spend to show he’s dedicated to winning, and we’d be in the playoffs!

P.S. Just as a random note, I was coming home from the casino last night around 1 am and decided to torture myself by listening to the Fan. A caller was talking about how Freddy Sanchez would have made a big difference at the MLB level. Ignore Freddy’s own performance this year, he compared Sanchez to AKI, as if Aki has been playing all season.

The host then completely agreed, and added that all this losing at the MLB level will “pollute” the current players, and furthermore, this was all objective fact because it’s happened in the past.

The point is, I hate everyone.

by CptnAwesome on Aug 22, 2010 6:10 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

did you play Tik Tat Toe against the Chicken

assuming you went to Rivers Casino

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 22, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Off-topic:

What the blank is that promotion? I just can’t comprehend how that works. Or why any business would offer that as a promotion.

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

“Rivers Casino wants you to………………………………..come to the table!”

My guess is they have terrible slogan generators.

by ryebr3ad on Aug 22, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

at Rivers Casino

you can play tik tack toe against a live chicken, or atleast you could at one point in time.

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 22, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Tic Tac Toe is played correctly

no one ever wins.

That’s kind of the whole point of a casino, actually. The house might not always win, but the house never loses.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Must have been a recurring theme all day because the kid with the goofy hair from KDKA was hosting midday on the Fan and had Dejan on. Dejan was saying about how they shouldn’t have gutted the Major League roster so much and that all this losing will pollute the young guys and etc. Which i suppose is plausible and not all that outrageous, but then he started saying about how not trading Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez would have made a big difference.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jack and Freddy would have made a difference

Not a big one, but they would have cost this team another win.

Wilson/Sanchez: .8WAR
Cedeno/Walker: 1.8 WAR

So if we’d kept them, we’d be another game behind (ahead?) of the Orioles.

by maguro on Aug 22, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's amazing

so of the stuff he says vs. what he writes.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 22, 2010 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dejan tends to invent theories to get himself to the results he wants, which invariably are that all the trades were disasters. In Jack’s and Freddy’s case, his theory is that they wouldn’t have gotten hurt if they hadn’t been traded because the Pirates had them on some brilliant conditioning plan. (Why we’d assume the Giants and Mariners, whose staffs would get their medical records, wouldn’t so the same I’m not sure.) Of course, Freddy is healthy now and he sucks so bad that they’re platooning him. I don’t know how Dejan gets around that one, especially in light of the fact that Walker is hugely outperforming Freddy.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Couldn't agree more.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 23, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Accounting....

This is really a bare bones answer the team has provided. That doesn’t make it good or bad it just is not fully illustrative. Cash Flow is much more important than Net Income. We have no idea what the annual no-cash charges like depreciation are and what the book taxes are versus taxes out of pocket. The numbers could be substantially altered based on this.

I’m not arguing that Nutting is or isn’t making a lot of money. I am saying that I would NOT draw expansive conclusions based on the information that has been disclosed.

As Deadstar said money can be allocated to a lot of things. I wonder how bad they thought the press was going to be in order to come out and release this information?

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 22, 2010 6:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, I’m kidding around in my replies. It’ll be interesting to see what comes out and what conclusions people who dive in come up with.

by CptnAwesome on Aug 22, 2010 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Great statement on cash flow v net income. I’m a finance major currently working in finance and this topic is one of the hardest things to explain to non-finance and accounting people. Without the entire financial statement, anyone drawing a conclusion off of these few numbers is probably wrong.

That being said, my best guess is that Nutting is not as rich as everyone believes and not nearly as greedy as everyone believes. I believe he is doing the right for the franchise and without Huntington being fired we will be competing ~2013.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

I pressed post and realized that last sentence is worded poorly.

I was saying if they keep Huntington as they should, this club will compete ~2013. If they get rid of him, we are 90%+ likely to be completely fucked. I see no reason why he should be let go.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s pretty much possible to make the profits whatever you want them to be. The thing is, they’re acknowledging some sizeable profits (although nowhere near what the conspiracy mongers like to think, nor anywhere near enough that it would have made a real difference in the team’s fortunes). But a cash distribution either happens or it doesn’t. Unless they’ve completely put one over on the union—which has the right to audit all the books—I’m not sure what else you’re going to learn. Exactly how often have the MLB owners put one over on the MLBPA?

The point they’re trying to address is the question whether they’ve taken money out of the team. Profits don’t show that one way or the other. Cash distributions show that.

I wonder how bad they thought the press was going to be in order to come out and release this information?

They’re afraid people are going to interpret the $20M as them taking money out of the team. Of course, it is them (and the other partners) taking out money, but the money doesn’t represent profits.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is latitude in accounting, however you can’t make profits whatever you want them to be.

Agreed, book profit does not show whether money is distributed; however book profits are an indicator, along with the impact of non-cash charges (e.g. depreciation), capital expenditures, working capital issues, of the ability to pay dividends (take money out of the team).

Further you can not simply look at cash distributions to determine whether the ownership group is benefiting. Profits and the resulting cash flow can be distributed, put back in the team (which increases equity value of the PBC) or used to pay down debt (which increases equity value of the PBC).

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

nutting gained if we stay with this guy

nutting should call mark cuban and sell to him. enough of nickel and diming with this storied franchise. cuban may be willing to buy his hometown team after striking out with the cubs and texas! bucsthetrend

by bucsthetrend on Aug 22, 2010 6:41 PM EDT reply actions  

Doesn't the loan essentially mean...

Nutting is WILLING to put money into the team?

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 Aug 22, 2010 6:59 PM EDT reply actions  

thats the way I see it

It’s the partners that are holdin him back.

Who are they?

by BadAndy on Aug 22, 2010 7:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I am not even sure what to say

The profit for 2007 was $15,008,032
The profit for 2008 was $14,408,249
The profit for 2009 was $5,400,000 (close but not exact)

Three year profit $34,816,281

really…..

wow……

Link to the numbers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10234/1081949-100.stm

I owe some people an apology, ownership is really a bunch of cheap sobs.

Wow.. this hurts. Not sure what to do or say.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:00 PM EDT reply actions  

And where did you want them to spend the money?

How would that have changed the outcome of the seasons?

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really?

How about half a million to get Sano signed?

We can start there.

Maybe 600k and we have Scheppers

Not a bad second.

Want me to go on?

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes actually I do.

Please continue to tell me how the team who has spent the most on the draft of any of the 30 teams in the MLB in the last three years is not spending enough on prospects. They are going to spend the most next year probably by a decent margin when they have the first pick.

You can’t sign every prospect every year.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Didn't answer the question

That wouldn’t have changed the outcome of any season so far.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Both walked because of money

Go look at the comments after the signings/non signings

Twins met their price

Scheppers did not get enough money.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Scheppers

“It became clear that Tanner’s financial expectations were not in line with the risks presented by Tanner’s current status as a pitcher in the early stages of a rehabilitation program,” Huntington said. “Unfortunately, Tanner’s rehabilitation program timeline changed dramatically from what his representative presented to us prior to the draft. Had Tanner been able to demonstrate that he was fully recovered, we are confident that we could have found common ground.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08229/904846-63.stm

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sano

The Pittsburgh Pirates appeared to be Sano’s most ardent suitor, but negotiations between the two sides were at a standstill after agent Rob Plummer rejected a $2.6 million offer from the team.

Miguel Angel Sano, a Dominican shortstop considered by many as the top free agent teenage prospect in Latin America, will sign with the Minnesota Twins for a $3.15 million bonus, according to Sano’s agent Rob Plummer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4517993

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here you go

Not going to keep this discussion up. Proved my point about the signings being about money. Cross any other t’s or dot the i’s your self. Proved my point about it coming down to money. These 2 players are now both top prospects in baseball.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

You might be insane.

As the post below said, the Sano camp wanted nothing to do with the Pirates and Scheppers wasn’t worth the risk according to Huntington, and with the information he had at the time it looks like it was a fine decision. Hindsight is 20/20 champ.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Keep lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you.

Go read Sano’s agents whole story. It was way more than you say, and yes it was about money.. get your facts straight champ. Go pull up an article and back up your half assed arguments.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not lashing out.

Just asking for the name of a pitcher, thats all.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not going to keep this discussion up. Proved my point about the signings being about money.

You did? Where? I see nothing about the Pirates balking at matching Sano’s price. Nor do I see anything but medical questions about Schneppers. You’ve proven nothing.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Both articles state money issues as reasons.

and yes.. it was reported by the Post gazette and ESPN.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right, as in “We’re not going to pay $2 million for possibly damaged goods”. Which is good business sense.

And dude, Plummer himself said he didn’t give the Pirates the chance to match Sano’s offer because he didn’t like how they were doing things. There’s nothing in your linked article that says the Pirates wouldn’t match, it says Plummer rejected their offer

Geezus, for someone who claims to have been here for awhile you obviously don’t retain much knowledge of things that we’ve gone over over and over and over again

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dude

You really are making up stuff on the Sano front.

His agent even stated that agents do not always go back and forth for a signing bonus. Sometimes you take the best offer when it appears because if you do not, when you get back from checking with another team it vanishes.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

From Sano's agent

Huntington and Plummer discussed all this in extensive conversations, and Huntington ultimately called Plummer on what he felt was a bluff: The Pirates were confident that Plummer had no other offers and that other teams would enter the equation only after Sano had his age cleared. (Their own investigation, they felt, gave them the upper hand in this, as their bone-scan tests showed Sano to be between 16 and 17, just as he claims.) Huntington asked Plummer why he should bother to raise his offer in the slightest when he was the only one known to be in the bidding. Plummer interpreted that as a lack of trust, repeatedly asking Huntington, “Do you think I’m lying?”

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

nice way to quote out of context....

for those that are interested the entire thing is at:

http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/pbc/archive/2009/09/30/morning-links-forget-sano.aspx

"I choose to gamble with my life

Twice the risk, four times the prize

Nothing knocks me over"

by lighthouse913 on Aug 22, 2010 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hardly out of context

and it was Dutch auction style of negotiations.

Plus the agent had a valid point about negotiating with teams.

If a team meets your asking price, running back to another team could cause the previous agreement to vanish and destroy any chance of negotiating with that team again.

The Twins met his price… the Pirates did not. hardly debatable.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

because whats the point of bidding against yourself

if no one is offering a contract for his services why would you raise the price to cost you more money when you have no reason to. Also something you forget it that Sano wanted to be a Pirate and called his agent wondering why he wasn’t one yet.

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 22, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

In fairness ...

that’s the team’s version.

Sano largely dismissed it when he signed with the Twins.

by Bernie6 on Aug 23, 2010 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Pirates asked for and expected to get...

…the opportunity to better any contract offered to Sano. Plummer, his agent, did not give the Pirates the opportunity to better the offer made by the Twins. Therefore, the Pirates did not fail to sign Sano because the team and its owner was unwilling to spend the money to sign him. The Pirates failed to sign Sano because they lacked the opportunity to competitively bid for Sano. Moreover, the facts as reported on the signing are clear and readily available.

This is Dejan K’s report on the Sano signing:

Minnesota signed Sano for a $3.15 million bonus, and the Pirates’ final offer was for $2.6 million. By all accounts, it was not the gap that did in the Pirates so much as a clash of personalities between Sano’s agent, Rob Plummer, and the Pirates’ two point men, general manager Neal Huntington and Gayo. The Pirates never were given a chance to match or exceed the Twins’ offer, and their palpable anger the past two days strongly suggests they might have done so.

Here is Starkey’s explanation with a quote by Plummer:

“The Twins were the one team that followed my instructions to a tee.”

Other teams, including the Pirates, might have topped the Twins’ $3.15 million signing bonus, but Plummer liked the way Minnesota did business.

By failing to generate competitive bids from the teams interested in Sano, Plummer actually acted unethically, and his lack of ethics probably cost the Sano family money.

So, the Sano signing-fiasco does not prove that the Pirates lacked the financial resources needed to sign the player. The only point proved by Shrowd is this: He either lacks knowledge of the facts of this case or he has chosen to ignore and obscure those facts in order to smear Nutting and the Pirates.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

You make a point ...

but if the agent feels that he doesn’t like how a team conducts business, he or she is under no obligation to send a client there because the team was the high bidder.

Did he probably cost his client money?

Yes

And yes, I do wish the Pirates had followed his wishes—like not submitting a bid while the age was being verified—because I think a deal would have been worked out.

Unfortunately, NH and the agent got into a peeing match. That’s just something that never helps, no matter how arrogant the agent is (think Boras).

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I know the real reasons why Sano and Scheppers didnt get signed

But I won’t waste my post revealing it to Yinzer mindless scum like yourself and the rest of y’all Smiziknites.

by BadAndy on Aug 22, 2010 7:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I was there too

As has been said countless thousand times we weren’t given the option of meeting the Sano asking price. And judging from their amateur spending the past few years it’s hard to believe they’d balk at spending a few extra hundred thou for him

And Schneppers, again as been said thousands of times, wasn’t healthy enough to sign for what he was asking. Say they did sign him for $2 million or whatever it was, and he can never pitch effectively again, which was entirely plausible given what they knew. What a stupid use of $2 million

So again, what good would that $15 million have done?

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

You know...

…that they were willing to spend more on Sano than he ended up getting, but were never given the opportunity to present their bid because Sano’s agent lied to them, right?

And sure, they could’ve signed Scheppers for that money – at a time when he was well behind schedule in his rehab from an injury that basically no high-level pitcher in recent memory has sustained. On deadline day, his fastball was in the 80s and he wasn’t allowed to throw breaking stuff. Now, it turned out that he was able to make a full recovery and return to a high level of performance, so good for him. But that wasn’t anything close to a given at the time when they had to fish or cut bait, so how can you balme them for deciding to walk away?

by Vlad on Aug 22, 2010 9:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Vlad

Did you get my email? I sent it thru Primer.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Let me check.

I’m pretty terrible about responding to e-mails.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

Found it.

You were in my spam filter.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

Scheppers was hurt

he was too big of a risk at the time for that amount

by eyeofhorus777 on Aug 22, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

How does it hurt?

People keep assuming that “profit” means money taken out of the team. It doesn’t. If they re-invest the profits—which is what they’re saying they did—doesn’t that HELP the team?

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Retained Earnings

Is the formal name for that, and you are correct it is a benefit for the financial strength of the company, not the equity owners of the company. People just can’t seem to grasp this.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’ve gone through this discussion so many times I can’t possibly count them. So damn many fans assume that profits = $$ in somebody’s pocket. No amount of explanation can disabuse any of these people—like shrowd down below—of this false notion. The screaming just keeps drowning out the facts.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

If so many people are wrong despite your best efforts

You should consider the possibility that you are wrong.

This monstrous debt that they are repaying is apparently not substantial enough to prevent them from generating huge profits in every fiscal year that isn’t a historically bad year for every business in the world.

Repaying the debt is exactly like putting money in their pockets.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 22, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

What’s the point of complaining about them paying interest on their debts? Are you saying they should default on their debts? Good idea.

And everybody’s known all along that they’re paying off debts. Taking on the team’s debts was a significant part of the McClatchy group’s purchase price. The claim that the FO bashers have made is that Nutting has been taking money out of the team to put into Seven Springs or for some other nefarious purpose. Payments on debt are not money taken out of the team by the owners. Those debts pre-existed this ownership and have to be paid. Yeah, the payments increase the value of the owners’ stake in the team. What exactly are they supposed to do about that?

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not interest, stupid

Payments on interest come on the expense side of the ledger and are subtracted before profits are calculated. Profits are, by definition, earnings after they’ve paid off interest. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) would be a whole different thing.

I’m talking about repaying principal, which is what the Pirates are doing. There’s nothing wrong with repaying principal. There’s also nothing wrong with carrying a manageable debt (which clearly this is, since they are profiting handsomely in spite of the debt and finance charges). Every business does it, just as almost every household has a mortgage and a car payment or two. The decision to pay down principal or not pay down principal are business decisions based on a host of circumstances.

What I am saying is that profits actually are profits. Whether they put the money in their pockets or repay their debt is irrelevant to it, as it all goes to the same place.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

And I’ve never disputed that profits are profits, moron. You seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem. I haven’t said anything that differs from what you’re saying. I expressly said the payments increase their equity, which interest payments wouldn’t do. What part of that are you too big an idiot to understand?

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry ...

I’m one of the bigger Nutting skeptics on this board.

But that’s silly.

If you take out a loan to buy a business, it’s fiscally responsible to pay down debt.

Moreover, the finances were so bad under the previous management that they had to dump Ramirez’s contract.

That’s a responsible business practice.

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

The irony is that the Nuttings loaned the team money to help bail it out of the financial mess that McClatchy created, then tried to convert the loan to an investment in the team but were thwarted by the minority owners, and now are being blasted for getting the loan repaid.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The loan was 15% per year, compounded annually

The size of the loan was relatively small, too. The total value at the time of cash-in was $40 million, so the original loan would have been about half that (15% doubles in two years). For $20 m in 2003, they received $10 million in cash in 2008, plus $20 million in common stock, plus kept $10 million in their 15% interest bearing account.

What did this infusion of $20 million do, exactly? The hypothesis here is that the millions taken out do nothing.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Accrual

According to the documents on Deadspin, the LP units stopped accruing interest on the fifth anniversary of issue. So the Nuttings put in $20M in 2003, got $9.6M in 2007 and 2008, got $20M in additional equity in July 2008, and as of October 2008 retained $10.4M in “preferred LP units” that can be converted to equity or taken in cash, but are accruing no further interest (they’re not an “interest bearing account” any longer).

The infusion of $20M, according to the Pirates, allowed them to “meet its operational needs” – like, say, make payroll.

No, the millions taken out in fact do nothing for the PBC; they allow the limited partners to keep the same stake they have. But you can’t blame the Nuttings for that, since they recused themselves from that vote.

by DG Lewis on Aug 23, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you all are failing to understand

that the debt is now clearly manageable, as evidenced by the enoromous profits. All businesses carry debt. The decision to carry oay down debt with sizeable profits is a decision that is directly tied to turning a business into a “cash cow” — maximizing profits rather than growth. Lowering the principal means more profits in the future, but less money to invest in expanding your market.

I should add that the reason there is tension between the Nuttings and the other owners could be explained by the fact that the Nuttings own so many failing and dying businesses with which to offset the profits they earn (but don’t distribute) from this team.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is entirely fact-free speculation on your part. People are “failing to understand” it because you’re just making it up.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

That the debt is manageable

is plainly evidenced by the fact that the team is (consistently) profitable.

That is a fact. You can’t turn a profit, by definition, unless your finance charges are less than your earnings before interest and taxes.

The source of the tension between owners is acknowledged as speculation, but only a fool would believe that the Nuttings would not pay the amount required to cover taxes if they themselves were actually paying the taxes. In an LP, profits pass through to the individual partners, and profits in one business may be offset by losses in another. The Nuttings, being in the newspaper and resort businesses, almost certainly have sufficient losses to cover the Bucs’ profits.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Still speculation. The profits went down significantly this year and the team is going to have to increase payroll, which means they’re at risk of them going down again. They have no choice about the payroll because they’re certain to have trouble with the union otherwise. The profit level doesn’t necessarily reflect anything other than the low payroll that is exactly what happens with teams following a coherent rebuilding plan. THE UNION PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THIS. You’re making unfounded assumptions about their business model based on short-term returns.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

You mean, profits were down --

in a year that was, econimically speaking, historically bad for businesses across the board and across the globe?

How did that happen? I thought all those corporate sponsors wanted to invest more in luxury suites silliness and sponsoring teams no one watches during economic downturns.

Headscratcher, for sure.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're contradicting yourself

Regardless of why the profits are down, it makes the debt less manageable. You’re basing all your analysis on conditions that no longer exist.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

My guess would be that

the profits mostly went down in 2009, if it’s true, due to accelerated depreciation on the capital expenditures. A tax fiction.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

You just said it was the economy. Now it’s an accounting trick.

This is pointless. You just veer from speculation to speculation, none of it based on anything.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

"My guess would be that..."

Yep – that’s certainly a guess. As in not supported by any actual information.

by Vlad on Aug 24, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tired or not...

…it’s true and on-point.

Saying that something’s “tired” is not a rebuttal. Showing morons where they can see Obama’s birth certificate is pretty tiring, too, but that doesn’t make it any less necessary when some jackhole starts asking why he hasn’t made it public.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

I went over this earlier in the season

Not true. Forebearance does not equal approval.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, no, he probably doesn't approve.

He’d prefer a strategy that involved us paying large amounts of money for mediocre veterans (i.e. the people he represents) and ignoring the draft entirely.

But his approval of the situation is more or less an irrelevant question. It’s his job to find an excuse to make an issue of our spending on veterans and force us to increase that spending. And he’s very good at that job. If he can’t come up with even a semi-plausible causus belli, then reasonable people are forced to conclude that one does not exist, and that the team is thus operating entirely on the up-and-up in this area.

This is, I am pretty sure, a point that has been explained to you before. If you’re as “tired” of seeing it as you are of seeing the equally-valid one to which you objected earlier, then might I suggest that you seek a more fruitful line of argument?

by Vlad on Aug 24, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

You’ll keep hearing it as long as you ignore it and engage in speculation that contradicts known facts.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

RE: "enormous profits"

$34.8M over three years is an enormous profit is some contexts, but clearly not in MLB. Investing that type of money into the free agent market probably nets you an extra 2-3 wins per year if you choose your acquisition wisely. All this breathless reporting of massive profit-taking is absurd. This isn’t 1975.

by maguro on Aug 23, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Au contraire

When your revenue is roughly $70 – 80 million, profits in the neighborhood of $15 million (20% of revenue) in a year are essentially the kinds of profits reserved for new and innovative types of businesses, or business with huge barriers to entry, not longstanding businesses.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

The team's operating expenses are in the $120M range

So the profits are more on the order of 10%. But even that is really irrelevant. The key question is whether ownership could have dramatically altered the team’s on-the-field fortunes by forgoing those profits and spending that $35M from 2007-2009 on player salaries.

I say they could not have. Do you disagree?

by maguro on Aug 23, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

From the financial statements that were released.

by matskralc on Aug 23, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

I looked at those statements

The Pirates repaid over $5 million in debt in 2007 and then disbursed $20 million to themselves in 2008.

The numbers also show “losses” of $12 million in 2008 and $10 million in 2009 for “amortization and depreciation” although those numbers are not reflected on the asset sheet.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, having looked at the financial statements

All one can see is them disbursing the money to the partners. In 07 they paid down debt. In 08, they disbursed the entire 20 million in operating income.

There is no financial statement for 09, just Coonelly’s word on the matter.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lack of context

There’s one bad assumption that underlies all your arguments: You’re assuming their financial practices can stay the same indefinitely. They can’t and the Pirates know it. They’ve stated publicly that the payroll will increase. It has to. First of all, the plan they’re following requires it. As young players get older, they’ll get more expensive. And the Pirates have no choice because they’ll have trouble with the union and with teams like the Yankees and Red Sox that are already lobbying against the revenue sharing system. With the CBA up for renegotiation, the Pirates’ slice of the revenue sharing proceeds would definitely be jeopardized if their payroll stayed flat.

So where is that increase going to come from? The only place it can come from for certain is out of profits. They can’t count on increased attendance to cover it; the Rays haven’t had that great an attendance boost and they reached the WS. The Pirates probably won’t. In that context, $15M (although their profit margin is much smaller now) isn’t enormous at all because that amount won’t increase their payroll to a competitive level.

Another problem with all your assumptions is that, far from showing them turning the business into a “cash cow,” it makes perfect sense that they’d be paying down debt during a period when profits are artificially high due to an unsustainably low payroll. Faced with the inevitability of lower profits (and we’re not even talking about the bad economy yet) due to a higher payroll, they’d be insane not to try to lower their debt to some extent.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

that is one of the most interesting points of this thread

Clearly the Bucs could not operate without the revenue sharing – they take in more in revenue sharing than they do in gate receipts. At least from what we see in 2007-8 an admittedly small sample size.

What if the big market teams get their way and eliminate or significantly reduce revenue sharing? I think the short answer is that small market teams will go the way of the do-do.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, my first thought when I saw the revenue/expense summary Dejan printed was that the game’s financial structure just isn’t viable.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s a welfare state – who’d a thunk it.? The real tension will come when other markets come to the table with big buy in money (should the economy ever kick in).

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Doubtful

The Yankees can’t play the Red Sox every game.

Moreover, the NFL shows that if you do revenue sharing right and have competitive balance you generate more $s because you have real playoff races.

I can’t see how the large market teams would get revenue sharing reduced.

by Bernie6 on Aug 23, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know

it sure seems plausible. When you see that the bucs get 75% of their revenue from sharing and MLB money you have to wonder. If you were an owner of a mid-market or large market, wouldn’t you rather partner with a team that pulls their own weight? Make no mistake, the large market teams are the primary reason the Pirates can still field a “major league” team.

So the questoin for the group is: What is the incentive for large market teams to keep the Bucs franchise alive?

And second: Would MLB be better served with a team in a larger or comparable market – off the top of my head Charlotte? or another more sustainable market?

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

"What is the incentive for large market teams to keep the Bucs franchise alive?"

A larger pie. If there aren’t any Pirates, then people in Pittsburgh metro and the surrounding environs don’t buy MLB merch or subscribe to Extra Innings or pump up MLB’s ratings (and TV contract) on FOX. They go to movies or buy opera tickets or watch the Steelers instead. You’re making a mistake by forgetting about the revenue that MLB milks from the region independently of the Pirates.

There aren’t any attractive MLB markets without MLB clubs right now. That’s part of the reason that the Marlins and Rays haven’t moved – they have nowhere to go. Territorial rights close off the possibility of a second LA team or a third NY or Chicago team. MLB poisoned their own well in Montreal, probably for at least another decade. Mexico City has basically no corporate client base, a low-income population, and significant altitude-related issues affecting play. San Juan has the same financial issues, as well as daunting travel logistics. Las Vegas is a tiny TV market in the middle of a real estate crash, with gambling as an additional elephant in the room. Portland is a tiny TV market, and their fans don’t even go and see their AAA ball club. Charlotte has a good corporate base and a decent-sized population, but also has two major pro sports franchises already, one of which is struggling in spite of a new stadium.

I just don’t see many good options.

by Vlad on Aug 24, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Look at the Green Bays of the world in the NFL. When you have better revenue sharing, you do have a better competitive balance. You don’t have teams with losing records for 10 straight years. You have playoff races going late into the season. Baseball has far too many meaningless games with 5,000 fans.

Also, I think it takes 75 percent of owners to agree to change revenue sharing.

It’s not happening. And it’s unlikely, as Vlad points out, that a team is going to move.

by Bernie6 on Aug 24, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

My assumption would not be the elimination of a franchise, but moving the franchise to a more viable market. You’ve done a nice job hitting some possible markets.

by lloyd95 on Aug 24, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not arguing your main point but...

I don’t how you can call Portland a tiny TV market. At least according to this list, it is bigger than Pittsburgh (along with Baltimore, San Diego, Kansas City, Cincinnati and Milwaukee).

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp

by Wizard Imp on Aug 25, 2010 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions  

I was speaking...

…in terms of the Marlins/Rays relocating. Tiny might have stretched it a bit, but it’s significantly smaller than both Miami and Tampa/St. Pete, neither of whom is doing particularly well.

by Vlad on Aug 25, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

The NFL has real playoff races primarily because they only play 16 games.

by matskralc on Aug 24, 2010 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The increase could come from them working their market

by doing stuff, like, you know, making the team better and generating excitement.

In 08, they generated less from the gate than in 07. Their revenues still went up, due to a healthy infusion of welfare money.

As long as that’s the case, I can’t see how they would have any inducement to make the team better.

I agree they have a deal in place with teh union to increase payroll (hence, union forebearance, rather than approval) and that they must therefore spend more.

But how much? They can cover a certain amount from acquisitions like Chris Snyder — a $5 million payroll increase (offset by a $3 million cash infusion).

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I said some of it could come from increased attendance. I guess you missed that. But it’s something they can’t count on. They can, however, count on needing to increase payroll, and the notion that the union will be satisfied with a $5M increase is ludicrous. Also, acquiring Snyder and paying for him are two different things. They also can’t count on increases in revenue sharing because everybody in MLB has to deal with the economy. The business model you’re supposing can’t continue.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Huh?

Benefitting the “financial strength” of the company (actually, LP) is the exact same as benefitting the shareholders of a company (partners, LP).

I’m not sure what people are trying to say. What they are doing might be different from a Producers-like situation where they are extracting resources by claiming profits in the near-term in the plan of defaulting on debt eventually, but it isn’t any different than investing that money in savings at a rate of return = to the interest rate on the debt.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 22, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

You don't know very much at all, do you?

If they are paying down debt (which they must be, since capital expenditures are less than reported profits), then it’s the same thing, isn’t it?

If I have a home mortgage of $100,000, and I make a profit of $20,000 in investments, I have made just as much if I use it to pay down the mortgage to $80,000 as if I sock it in an account. My house is worth as much, but when I sell it (or “sale” it, for condescending jerks) I get to keep more. If I don’t sell it, I still pay less in interest in the future.

In fact, if I invest my $20,000 elsewhere I need to get a better return than my mortgage rate in order for it to have been better for me to have invested it than to have repaid the mortgage.
This is the same thing.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 22, 2010 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is all based on your fact-free speculation that 100% of the profits are going to pay down debt.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I never said 100%

You don’t need to speculate about this. The Bucs gave the amounts of their capital expenditures for these years, and it adds up to about half of the profits. The have to be repaying the debt with the rest, as the only other possibility is that they are keeping it as cash or investing it in unrelated investments.

It should be noted that the capital expenditures are probably subject to accelerated depreciation, and thus will rapidly accumulate as expenses that offset earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, etc. and the Pirates will get a nice tax break on their investment. In other words, these are expenditures that increase the value of the team at the same time that they reduce taxable profits.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again, so what? Nobody’s ever disputed that paying debt principal increases their equity.

And you have no knowledge of their debt structure. You’re assuming, without knowing, that they’re under no obligation ever to make any payments on principal.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Depreciation

Actually, the cap. expenditures are not subject to accelerated depreciation; if you read Note 2, Leaseholds and Equipment, you’ll clearly see that fixed assets are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the assets; therefore, there is no front-loading of the expense, to the extent that the asset is depreciated over anything more than a handful of years.

by Jeffasaurus on Aug 24, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

They are only saying they reinvested

about half of the profits. The other half must have been used to pay off debt.

But the point you are missing is this: Profits actually are profits. It doesn’t matter whether investing them in re-paying your mortgage makes more sense to someone than putting them in the bank. It doesn’t matter if investing them in upgrading your business’s real assets makes more sense than putting the money in a bank. All of these inure very much and very directly to the benefits of the owners.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 22, 2010 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think anybody is claiming profits don’t benefit the owners. I just wrote a piece at Pirates Prospects explicitly pointing out that the profits are still profits, they just haven’t been realized yet. The argument that I’m trying to respond to, and I think others in this thread, too, is that the Nuttings are taking actual cash out of the team and spending it on purposes that have nothing to do with the team.

It’s circular to criticize the team because reinvestment benefits the owners. EVERYTHING positive they do about the team benefits the owners. Right now, the Pirates are (according to Forbes) the least valuable franchise in MLB. Clearly, that’s because the team sucks, has low attendance and broadcast revenue, etc. ANY expenditure of “profits” that might improve their performance figures to benefit the owners. One of the many false assumptions that underlies the bashing of ownership, and that I think at least impliedly underlies your post, is that anything that’s good for the owners is bad for the fans. Reinvestment, if it’s done wisely, is good for both.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again ...

I tend to be as skeptical as anyone that the Nutting family will go to an $80 million payroll that is likely needed to make a playoff run.

At the same time, if I put $100 million into an investment, I’d expect a profit.

Nutting didn’t get to be owner by giving all his money away.

And if he pays off the team’s debt, WTM’s point is a good one. Interest for the loan can go into the product.

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right
One of the many false assumptions that underlies the bashing of ownership, and that I think at least impliedly underlies your post, is that anything that’s good for the owners is bad for the fans. Reinvestment, if it’s done wisely, is good for both.

It’s unrealistic to assume that the relationship between the Pirates and the fans must characterized as a zero sum game (the benefits gained by one side equal the losses of the other side). The relationship can also be a negative sum game (both sides generate a combined loss) or a positive sum game (both sides generate a combined gain). To my mind, the McClatchy Pirates, especially during Littlefield’s tenure, generated a negative sum game for the team and the fans. Over the medium- to long-term, the team and the fans would lose value whether that value is valued in money or in the consumption of the good itself. Eventually, the Pirates would not be profitable nor would the fans have teams to watch which they could enjoy in any way. The Nuttings are now attempting to create an organization that will produce the conditions for a positive sum relationship between the team and its fans. What form would that relationship take: The organization is profitable and fields teams that compete.

Nutting bashers obscure all of this with their carping over the ML payroll.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

I understand Steinbrenner Charities does a lot of good work for the prople of NYC…

It's a good day to be a Pirate

by Bucko on Aug 23, 2010 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, people seem to be torn between two mindsets:

On the one hand, there are those who think that the Nuttings are gearing up for a great big push. They pay down their debt, have less on the expense side, and more in some distant future to pay on payroll or whatever.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that the Nuttings are going cash cow: If you are converting to cash cow mode, you take your profits and “invest” them in paying down debt to make your business more profitable in the future. So long as you have offsetting losses from other businesses, making one business supremely profitable makes sense.

by RafaelBelliup on Aug 23, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you're converting to cash cow mode...

…then why do you try to get the repayment of your loan as an increased equity stake in the team rather than, y’know, cash?

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Shhhh!

Don’t interrupt a perfectly good conspiracy theory with logic!

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

i feel like...

the dumbest $#@! ever on this topic… like i wanna fart in a bathtub all night and laugh my azz off or something… im gonna hide in the corner and wait for someone to post anything i understand (could take all night)

by white angus on Aug 23, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Last thoughts

I started with this and will end here as well.

Not a business major here… just a guy with children getting by. But seeing that this team made 35 million over a 3 year period hurts. Just going by what I read in the post.

Spin it however you want. I need a few days to digest this and have someone translate what all the holier than thou business majors are screaming at people below into layman’s terms. Not everyone has a major in accounting or business.

Sometimes to us non accountant speaking people, when we see 35 million in profits, well we just assume that is what it means.

I live in the south and pay good money to watch the Pirates on TV and travel 600 miles to watch a couple of games a year with my two sons.

35 million seems like a whole lot to me.

Some of you guys just need to relax and understand that people may not agree with you without name calling and attitudes. Some of us may just not understand the whole picture.

5 am comes early and doubt giving meds while sleep walking is safe for anyone.

Peace gents.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

But seeing that this team made 35 million over a 3 year period hurts

how does this hurt you? is Nutting taking money out of your pockets? does bob owe ya money? youre a fan, you’ll get over it.

by white angus on Aug 22, 2010 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

well

if you want to be paying double for those tickets next time you go to a game i would say realize that its a business and yeah the team made some profits, but its clear that they now plan on spending for the team. a drastic increase in payroll will mean a drastic increase to all other spots for revenue for the owner, again this is a business. im ok with the money gain as long as i continue to see money is being spent on the team in some deparment.

by C Shint on Aug 22, 2010 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

you were calling people names and getting pissy, not the other way around

trying to safe face as a “layman with kids” is just a troll way out. You can argue here if you want but don’t play all passive agressive girly man when you get proven wrong.

by eyeofhorus777 on Aug 22, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

actually you used effectively

the unfrozen caveman lawyer defense very well

by eyeofhorus777 on Aug 23, 2010 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think they made $35 million.

I’m not an accountant so I could be comletely off base but this is how I understand it:

I don’t think they have profitted $35 million over 3 years. They have prifited $5 mil over 3 years. When the PBC earns profits they belong to the the entity that is the Pirates Ownership Group. it does not belong to Nutting or any other owners. That means after the books were closed on fiscal year 2007 the POG (Pirates Ownership Group) was $15 mil in the black. Essentially meaning the POG had $15 mil left in the bank. That money left over is the profits. Profits are not Nutting’s. In fact they are the exact opposite. Profits are monies that remained with the separate entity that is the Pirates and not given to the owners.That means the team started fiscal year 2008 with a $15 mil head start. The numbers don’t reset and go back to zero. The money becomes part of the 2008 budget. Now, at the end of 08. The POG showed a profit of close to $15 mil. That means they spent what they took in by the time the books were closed on 2008. Now, once again, the money does not reset and go back to zero. They started out with the cash/profits from the year before now on the books for 2009. At the end of 2009 they showed a profit of $5 million. The entity that is the Pirates spent $10 million more than they brought in in 2009 yet still remain profitable because they ended the year in the black.

Someone please let me know if this is wrong.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Aug 23, 2010 12:40 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

you’re mistaken. Each years profits on their financial statements are separate and discrete from the other years. On the balance sheet you’ll see the assets, liabilities and net worth, which is the financial position that you are referring to at the fiscal year end.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Aug 23, 2010 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

you do realize...

that Bob Nutting runs a business and has to make Money somehow? what do you people want him to do? every cent he gets put back in the team? Then whats the point of him owning it? Would you work or own something if you weren’t going to make any profit for yourself and it just went all back into your company or business? I know i wouldn’t wanna own something if every penny i made went back into my business and made nothing for myself.

by BigB2323 on Aug 22, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Money = wins

Yes 15 million will buy one hell of a starting pitcher.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Once again.. really?

take the Pirates 5th starter
Sub in a 15 million starter. Difference of about 12 wins.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Which name, specifically?

Who would they have signed?

You are excellent at dodging questions.

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

No I actually normally answer questions directly

Once again. Go check my previous posts.

Profits are profits. 30 million is just flippen silly amount to make when your team is losing hand over fist.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

shrowd.....u have no clue

Signing a Cliff Lee won’t make a difference…..look at Cleveland and Seattle.

But you don’t care as long as YOUR agenda is heard.

Quit wasting our time Yinzer

by BadAndy on Aug 22, 2010 7:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

yup

My agenda was only posting the 35 million profit and being shocked about it after all these years of confessing pauper status. The rest was idiots trying to run off anyone who has a different belief than themselves.

He’s a witch.. burn him!!!

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, the Pirates claim that they never made a profit.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Post Gazette claims otherwise. they list a $35 million profit.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was being sarcastic

The Pirates has always ackowledged that they were profitable. And why shouldn’t they be? No one invests millions of dollars in order to break even.

by maguro on Aug 22, 2010 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

wait...

aren’t male witches called warlocks? I’m not that clear on my wicca titles.

by BlindSquirrel on Aug 22, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would think

that a Lee signing (however preposterous) would at least give the fans a good reason, or at least another good reason to come to a home game once a week.

It would not however be enough to make us a 500 team.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

You think any SP—let alone any SP on the market—is worth 15 wins!?!??!

*Calculating Karstens as average, which is about right.

by CptnAwesome on Aug 22, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

And if he is ...

he’d be signing with NY, not Pittsburgh.

Everyone assumes that a guy who signs with the Yanks at that price would sign with the Pirates at it.

Nearly every player wouldn’t. The Yanks have a chance to win the World Series every year. And the Pirates don’t.

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

To find a pitcher worth 15 extra wins...

…you have to go back to the earliest days of the game, when teams carried only one or two pitchers and guys started 60+ games a year.

by Vlad on Aug 24, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

Still making bad assumptions

You’re assuming the profits weren’t spent on the team, which isn’t a valid assumption without know more.

And you’re assuming a pitcher worth $15M would sign with the Pirates, which is a REALLY bad assumption. Who exactly are you talking about? Sabathia? Yeah, surrrrre.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Your making assumptions now.

First, I never bash the team.. go check my posts.

Second make sense in your arguments. $15 million would not buy Sabathia.. lets chat about rational

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Still no name

What guy during those three years would they have signed, what was his WAR, and what was the pirates 5th starters WAR over the time period?

by Kosstic518 on Aug 22, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

yup

something that can be dug out in 60 -120 seconds or yet another post from you.

35 million in profits. enough said.

We Pirate fans have a saying: "God created the Bucs to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God.

by shrowd on Aug 22, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Naw. I don’t think he’s a troll. Just pissed that the team made a profit. But he does seem to be overreacting.

by ryebr3ad on Aug 22, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Jeff Suppan cost $12 million only a year ago. So a pitcher who’s $3 million better than Jeff Suppan.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

First, I never bash the team

Where did I say that?


Second make sense in your arguments. $15 million would not buy Sabathia.. lets chat about rational

You’re the one who said that’d by “one hell of a starting pitcher.” Who then? You’ve been asked to back up your claim, but you can’t do it.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK.

After the 2008 season, 4 years, $60M got Derek Lowe. 4/52 got Ryan Dempster, and 3/36 got Oilver Perez. So, yeah.

by biggyv on Aug 22, 2010 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Making the bad assumption that any of those guys would have signed with the Pirates, now we’re talking about improving by a 3-4 wins a year, although not with Ollie. Holy shit, think of the championships we lost!

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh, and the Pirates’ $30M in profit over three years would not have paid for any of them.

And we’re STILL making the bad assumption that that $30M wasn’t spent on the team.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

It assumes a lot of things. The biggest are that the only way for a team to spend money is through the ML payroll, specifically in free agency, and that any team that does any better than breaking even is cheating their fans. WHY DON’T THE YANKEES HAVE A $350M PAYROLL???!!!

by biggyv on Aug 22, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Two things ...

First, none of those guys would have signed with Pittsburgh at those prices.

Lowe and Perez are contracts that their teams have spent a year, at least, trying to dump.

Dempster is the only guy who remotely has pitched to the contract. And he would have meant a different of maybe five wins, at most, over a year.

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

yep, ONE pitcher

so we win an extra 6 or 7 games next year… 15MM… nice. suppan got paid almost 13MM this season… just sayin.

by white angus on Aug 22, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

lets chat about rational

I smell another meme!

by matskralc on Aug 22, 2010 7:17 PM EDT reply actions  

CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AFTER THESE REPORTS

by CptnAwesome on Aug 22, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

SON!

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 22, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think what I actually smell is another boring SALE THE TEAM flamefest. :-(

by matskralc on Aug 22, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

NUTTING WILL ONLY SELL THE TEAM TO MAKE MONEY

SON!

I’m thinking about making the son thing a long term thing, what do y’all think?

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 22, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Many Bothans died to bring the AP this information!

(That was a meme once, right?)

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 9:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

So the Owner

made a profit…..call the police, the owner of a business made a profit, how crazy! If you want him to re-invest that money in the team thats fine, but the money is being reinvested through the draft and the international signings as mentioned. not to mention there is nothing out on the market that would be worth that kind of money. when we do start raising payroll expect ticket prices and such to sky rocket so Nutting can keep making 5Mil a year……gosh sell this team, he made 5mil, im tired of it…..sarcasim

by C Shint on Aug 22, 2010 7:21 PM EDT reply actions  

He needs, at the very least,

to break even. Running in the red is no way to go through life at this level. We tried that in 2003, apparently, and how did that turn out? Not many fans I ever hear say “Good thing we dumped that Ramirez guy.”

I’m going to tell myself that the profits are going into a war chest to pay the difference-making free agent when the time comes that such a free agent will actually make a difference, turning a decent team into a good one. No point spending lots of money in free-agency to turn a terrible team into a merely bad one.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

how about

 spend some money so your mlb baseball club can go 82 – 80 and have someone in the accounting office release the record to the press.

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 7:30 PM EDT reply actions  

Setting a nice goal for yourself. You just want 82 wins. Everyone else wants more.

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 Aug 22, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

crawl

before you walk.

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tell that to the Tampa Bay Rays

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." ~Woody Allen

by Willton on Aug 23, 2010 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

When this stuff hits

the papers , will be the first time the pirates hit anything all year.

"sale the team" sweetleb

by sweetleb on Aug 22, 2010 7:36 PM EDT reply actions  

Actually, the Pirates have no less than 980 hits this year.

No joke.

Hey, an out is an out - unless you're Mario, in which case it's probably two outs. -UtesFan89

Hard work always beats talent if talent doesn't work hard.

by wg1of5 on Aug 22, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

The article seems accurate on the surface:

The Pirates are operated as a Limited Partnership which means that it must have at least on general partner responsible for its debts and can have as many limited partners who cannot lose more than their investments and who are prohibited from operating as management or risk losing their “limited liability” status. As such, a LP does not issue dividends as stated but rather makes distributions of cash whenever it’s managers decide. Often,profitable LPs distribute cash to allow its investors to have the necessary cash needed to pay their income taxes on the profits of the business. The key word is “profit”. What the article does not state is whether the profits were calculated using depreciation of players—a non-cash expenditure that is widely considered a “tax break” for oweners. In summary, the Pirates are an extremely profitable operation or they would not have issued this cash withdrawal to its investors on both a cash basis and an operational basis.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Aug 22, 2010 7:39 PM EDT reply actions  

I'm no accountant

but from what I remember of the 2 accounting classes I took last year, you’re exactly right. The key to all this is the Pirates being a Limited Partnership.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 22, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

As I recall, due to a screwy and legally nonsensical IRS ruling, players contracts can be depreciated for the first five years, and only five years, after a sale. I don’t think the Pirates can claim depreciation for them any longer.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

No I think you can

I’ll have to ask some of the professors in the department, but I’m pretty sure you can depreciate players contracts anytime. But I’ll have to get back to you

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 22, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don’t feel obliged, but they’ll have to check the IRS letter rulings. I’m absolutely certain there was one specifically on MLB player contracts and it didn’t seem to have any basis in law. So the “correct” position from a legal standpoint may not be what actually applies to MLB teams.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

IPF

Thank your daughter for helping you write this.

by patthatt on Aug 22, 2010 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

So the Pirates make some money

We knew that, they’ve repeatedly said that the team makes money. That is why people invest millions of dollars in a business. So what? How would things be better if the team lost money hand over fist?

by maguro on Aug 22, 2010 7:55 PM EDT reply actions  

BECAUSE MARK CUBAN WOULD SPEND ELEVENTY ZILLION DOLLARS OF HIS OWN MONEY AND TURN THEM INTO A CHAMPION!!!! WE KNOW THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE . . . BECAUSE . . . BECAUSE HE’S MARK CUBAN!!!!

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yea, those Mavericks are a real dynasty

Mr. Cuban is a moderately successful businessman who, through an aberration in history (the dot com bubble), now sits on a silly pile of money.

Baseball teams take a lot more money to run than basketball teams. I doubt Mr. Cuban could spend enough to make the Pirates a winner, since they’ll never have enough revenue to sustain a high salary roster.

by BarryJT on Aug 23, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Plus

the NBA has much better cost controls on payroll than NBA, IIRC.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wow, no wonder the FO wanted to get out in front of that piece.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seriously.

The story infers that losing is what makes the Pirates profitable, for starters, and that the only way to improve a team is to increase payroll. I also like this quote:

“The numbers indicate why people are suspecting they’re taking money from baseball and keeping it – they don’t spend it on the players,” said David Berri, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists and the author of two books detailing the relationship between finances and winning. “Teams have a choice. They can seek to maximize winning, what the Yankees do, or you can be the Pirates and make as much money as you can in your market. The Pirates aren’t trying to win.”

Yup, because the Yankees are losing money hand over fist, and don’t care at all about profits.

by biggyv on Aug 22, 2010 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Other than the fact that it’s got figures now for the 2007-08 profits—the Pirates have said repeatedly that the team has been profitable for the last five years—there’s nothing new. It’s carefully slanted—Robinson states that player development expenditures were “in line” with other teams in 2007-08, and mentions the total draft expenditures for 2008-10, but conveniently leaves out the fact that the Pirates led MLB in draft spending for those years. It mentions the “smoking gun” check stub, but doesn’t tell us how much the check was for. Gee, I wonder whether it was for millions and millions.

Standard hatchet job.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

It’s framed pretty harshly for sure. I’m pretty sure an economist shouldn’t be the one to judge what makes a MLB team successful on the field though haha.

Either way, I wouldn’t disagree with the assumption that a $35 million payroll would lead to more profits than a winning team with an $80 million payroll. But, again, this doesn’t really mean much when the profits are reportedly going back into the team anyway.

by Slizeezyc on Aug 22, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course, what absolutely nobody ever bothers even to try to explain is what exactly the Pirates could have done with $30M over three years to make the team appreciably better.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Because there is nothing that they could have done

in the absurd MLB world of gross revenue inequity and a mindless salary structure. One 10 mil. a year player? Two 5 mil. a year players? Please…

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 22, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

In 2008-2009...

they could have paid money for a decent manager.

by Thunder on Aug 22, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, that would have solved everything

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

It would have solved one problem

How to waste some of those profits on frivolous stuff.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

bucdaddy

I spent most of last week in Morgantown and read the Dominion Post every day. Imagine my surprise the other day when I opened the sports section and saw the headline that the Cardinals had acquired Pedro Feliz for Carpenter. I bet I wasn’t the only person that day that nearly choked on breakfast.

(Of course it should have been immediately apparent to one and all that they meant a former Mountaineer hurler who also has the surname, Carpenter.)

There sure are some smart editors working for the paper in Morgantown.

by patthatt on Aug 22, 2010 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

DOH!

Blame me, I was the smart editor that day. Completely forgot about the other Carpenter the Cards have. “Ex-WVU star” might have fit in the same space.

Anyway, how come you didn’t let me know you were here? We could have hooked up for lunch or something. Don’t make that mistake again.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

I thought you might be the culprit.

I’ve got a parent in Ruby Hospital.

I’m staying at the Rosenbaum(sp.?) Family House connected to the hospital.

I’ll be back up there tomorrow and probably stay through Saturday.

The reservation is under my family name, Hattman. If you leave a message there with a phone number, I’ll get in touch with you and we can meet.

If you need my mail address, Charlie should have it and can give it to you. I’ll check the computer up there sometime tomorrow. (I don’t want to put personal info here.)

by patthatt on Aug 23, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Headline on ESPN.com

“Financial documents show Pittsburgh Pirates win by losing.” I know the AP didn’t come up with that headline, but the whole thing is a hatchet job.

Any sports economist who claims the Pirates aren’t trying to win by reinvesting profits into player development knows nothing about sports or economics.

by mattjg on Aug 22, 2010 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

and this

is why i hope that even when the Pirates turn this around into a winning season we are all left alone in our own little world in peace and happiness because no matter what we will still be hearing the same old story of the Pirates lost all those years and never spent money on players…blah blah blah

by C Shint on Aug 22, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Favorite quote:
Still, Pittsburgh fans have long complained that the club’s various owners have been more interested in profits than performance…

Yeah, because most Pittsburgh fans are so intelligent…

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

VARIOUS OWNERZ???

ITS JUST TEH BOB NUTTING!!!!

by mattjg on Aug 22, 2010 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Everyone forgets how he brought a champion to Pittsburgh in 1909; alas.

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

THERE ARE VARIOUS OWNERZ!!!

ITS NOT JUST TEH BOB NUTTING! ITS TEH OGDEN NUTTING AND TEH BILL NUTTING AND TEH BOB NUTTING DAUGHTERS!!!!

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 23, 2010 3:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

McClatchy was more interested in profit-taking...

…than performance. Nutting and his people are interested in profit-taking and performance. the McClatchy Pirates invested little in the draft and Latin America because money spent there would not help the Pirates achieve their performance goals in Pittsburgh. Those performance goals: The win just enough and with players the common fan would know by name that attendance not completely tank.

In spite of the fact that the Pirates today lose at an astonishing rate, the organization as a whole is in far better shape with respect to its baseball talent than it has been at any time since the late-1980s/early-1990s.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nutting and his people are interested in profit-taking and performance

As it should be. Wouldn’t we all most of us question the competency, if not sanity, of a business owner disinterested in profit?

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 22, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s what they think Mark Cuban will do.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

That’s what they think Mark Cuban will do.

That is come in and spend spend spend with no regards to making money.

Because he’s just soooo competitive.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

agreed...

his bid to buy the Rangers proved that the man is still making money… sure he spends more than some, doesnt mean that he takes from one sourse and puts it towards the other.

by white angus on Aug 23, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Any profit he would make would be used to pay off fines from various leagues because of word vomit.

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 Aug 22, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

That usually means

“I, Alan Robinson, have long complained …”

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

With the Pirates spending huge money on the past 3 drafts and a bundle more on international signings,

it’s pretty obvious that they are putting a ton of money into improving the franchise.

It makes one helluva a lot more sense to invest in players and facilities that can help you win down the road than the one-year loser rentals DL was famous for.

I have my doubts that the Nuttings will ever spend the money at the big league level in a few years to help the team where necessary to contend, but at least some good is being done to get the talent in place to eventually get there.

Maybe the Nuttings will “sale” the team when that point is reached.

by patthatt on Aug 22, 2010 8:32 PM EDT reply actions  

Is there really a baseball team in Pittsburgh?

I’ve been following baseball since I moved to America in 1993, well not the entire season just the playoffs, but I have never heard of this Pittsburgh team. My friend tells me that the Pittsburgh team win 18 games in row recently so I search internet for them, and here I see website that might be able to give me informacion.
Is there team in Pittsburgh? Is team good?

by King.James on Aug 22, 2010 9:16 PM EDT reply actions  

is this guy serious or are you all just F’ing with me?

by C Shint on Aug 22, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Look at his name

Then proceed to ignore anything he says ever again.

by Schide on Aug 22, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

ha i suppose you are right

by C Shint on Aug 22, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

You bet Joe!

A-number-1 good team!

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 22, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

You can't be a King without a ring

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 23, 2010 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

No offense, King

but your commercials creep me out.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do you find...

…Nationwide’s “World’s Greatest Spokesperson” creepy? The Gecko seems to me to be more normally human than him.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 23, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not even sure

what those commercials are supposed to be about. Maybe they tested great in Hollywood or something.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd bet they're about...

…a Nationwide marketing executive concluding that Nationwide needs a spokesclown that can compete with the Gecko and Justin Case. None of the three actually competes with Progressive Flo because she’s actually funny and humanizes a stereotype.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 24, 2010 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

The gecko, at least, is cute.

by Vlad on Aug 24, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

i have an H

ergo, i no bear responsibility!

by BurgherKing on Aug 23, 2010 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re-elect Obama

What? It’s no less absurd than any other comment here. His economic policies clearly have created an environment for an American business to be profitable. All credit goes to him and the Democrats. The Republicans, not Dave Littlefield, created the mess we were in earlier this century. Tea party dipshits.

by azibuck on Aug 22, 2010 9:49 PM EDT reply actions  

You know, I’ve often wanted to bring it up, but didn’t want to for fear of causing a stupid pointless political argument. But since you brought it up the parallels between Bob Nutting’s ownership and Obama’s presidency are somewhat stunning.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Azibuck

I’ve missed this positive business environment that has allowed business to be profitable.

I’m happy to give the credit to him for a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and nearly a 20 percent unemployment rate.

Are you kidding?

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, just no. Let’s not start this crap

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

You’re happy to talk politics as long as everyone agrees with you.

by maguro on Aug 22, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think he was saying

He doesn’t want to talk politics on the board, much less a political debate

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 23, 2010 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

The point

There are some absurd comments in this thread. Get it now?

by azibuck on Aug 23, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Really? We want to get into this?

Please take the political discussions elsewhere.

by biggyv on Aug 22, 2010 10:05 PM EDT reply actions  

I don’t know if that Coonely quote is particularly ominous. He’s saying “You can win without an $80 million payroll”, because you can even if it is fluky. More ominous would be if he’dve said “We can’t go up to $80 million even if we have to”.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Exactly

He meant you can win with a $120Million payroll..

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

I"m just having fun ...

but I don’t see much of a comparison between Bob Nutting and Pres. Obama.

by Bernie6 on Aug 22, 2010 10:07 PM EDT reply actions  

I’d go into it, but I’m going to follow my own advice

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wow.

It’s amazing what you will miss when you’re working for about 12 hours straight. Interesting stuff.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 22, 2010 10:08 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, you missed learning a lot of stuff about the Pirates that we already knew and people taking the same positions they always take.

And some strange, foreign-sounding shit.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, the Bucs won today.

Maybe that’s the interesting stuff he’s talking about.

by biggyv on Aug 22, 2010 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

They were due

It’s the fourth Sunday in a month with no “r” in it. Nothing to see here.

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

biggyv

There was undoubtedly some hair-pulling and gnashing of teeth because if we win more than a few more this season we might not get Rendon in the draft next one and we’ll never win without him because of course he will be the best amateur player a year from now.

by patthatt on Aug 22, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, there is that . . . .

by WTM on Aug 22, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Everyone is just perfecting their arguments
Yeah, you missed learning a lot of stuff about the Pirates that we already knew and people taking the same positions they always take.

Though the Nutting bashers face the problem that their positions are intrinsically wrong.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really?

THE PIRATES ARE POCKETING MONEY!!!!! $5.4 MILLION IS MONEY THAT COUDL HAVE BEEN SPENT ON A FREE AGENT THAT WOLD PUT THE PIATES AHEAD! I HAVEN’T WATCHED A GAME SINCE 1997! THIS TEAM IS A JOKE! NUTTING IS MOCKING US AND ALL OF BASEBALL WITH HIS CORPRATE WHITE COLLER THEFT.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 22, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think the best part about this

is that people are failing to seperate the Pirates profiting from Bob Nutting profiting. Because the Pirates are set up as a limited partnership, Nutting does not have a managing stake, and its the management he hires that determines when he receives his payouts. He hasn’t gotten one in almost 3 years.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 23, 2010 7:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Saving for a rainy day? or Teasing the fans?
One of the more interesting bits, however, is an ominous comment from Frank Coonelly that “you can win without an $80 million payroll,” as San Diego and Tampa Bay have. Well, sure, you can, but the Padres are a surprise team that has about 40 pitchers playing out of their minds, and the Rays’ payroll has risen to $72 million this year to pay for guys like Carlos Pena, Carl Crawford and Rafael Soriano. It’s possible to have a winning season with a $40 million payroll if you’re smart and very lucky, sure, but good luck sustaining the winning after that one season.

Teams that accumulate young and talented players can win when those players are comparatively cheap. The low-revenue teams will always have revenue-determined budget constraints that limit their ability to pay for the talent they acquire and develop. Their win-sell-rebuild cycle will always be shorter than those faced by the high-revenue teams. It’s unclear at this time the amount of money the Pirates could devote to the ML payroll when the team is winning, filling PNC with fans, selling merchandise, etc. I’d guess the amount exceeds $70M. But we’ll have a better sense of that when the time comes for Nutting to make good on his promise.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 10:16 PM EDT reply actions  

and the Rays have already announced...

that their 2011 payroll will be significantly slashed, to the point that they are going probably let both crawford and pena walk

by white angus on Aug 22, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Low-revenue teams generate competitive teams...

…with comparatively brief life-spans. The Yankees have depended upon one group of players to compete for championships for the last 15 years. They signed and developed these players and they will likely retire as Yankees. The Rays, Pirates, Brewers, Reds, etc. will never have the capacity to match the Yankees in this regard.

It will be interesting to see how Pujols handles his next contract. St. Louis is a small-market team that generates the revenues needed to remain competitive. But, can and will the Cards pay Pujols a competitive salary? The Cards may need to if the Yankees or Red Sox offer Pujols $25M+ per year.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 22, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Their best bet might be to offer him a minority stake in the franchise….is that even legal?

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 Aug 22, 2010 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think so

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 22, 2010 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think St. Louis is "small-market"

More like upper mid-market. I would bet that they keep Pujols.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 23, 2010 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

St. Louis is best characterized as...

…a small-market area when compare to Chicago, New York, etc. The Cards are a high-revenue team, however, because the people of St. Louis love their Cardinals and support their team. It is notable that the Cards do not spend exceptional amounts of money on the ML payroll even though the team competes for championships in most seasons. The Cards also face budget constraints relative to the size of their market.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 23, 2010 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Cardinals are also notable...

…in that they’ve done very well expanding and exploiting the areas of their fanbase that fall outside of the St. Louis metro area.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Is there still

brewery money going into the team? That’s been the crux of my “politics of beer” argument for years, that every Bud you buy at PNC helps the Cards pay Pujols (and every Miller you drink helps the Brewers pay Prince Fielder, and every Coors etc.), so if you’re a Pirates fan DO NOT EVER BUY BUD or MILLER or COORS or you’re a traitor.

I mean, they still call it Busch Stadium, so I assume at the very least A-B pays for corporate naming rights, which is money the team can use to, you know, pay Pujols to kick our ass.

Plenty of excellent Pennsylvania beers. No need to give aid and payroll to the enemy.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yep.

If you’re drinking, have an Ahrn or a Yuengling or a Straub.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Straub

+1

I miss that stuff.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Aug 23, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not to mention

Straub is an advertiser on “The It’s Alive! Show.” Those 10-second commercials are sheer genius.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

They don't sell those in Iowa.

I’m drinking Leinenkugel. Since they’re not Miller, Coors or Budweiser, I think I’m safe.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 23, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I like Leinie amber

However:

MillerCoors has created a separate, independent company to handle its portfolio of craft and import beers. … The company’s brands include Blue Moon, Leinenkugel’s and Peroni Nastro Azzurro.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh for fuck's sake.

I guess I will have to stick to drinking Roller Dam Red Ale. Looking at the Great River Brewery’s website, there’s no indication that they’re owned by Busch, Coors or Miller.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 24, 2010 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Resistance is futile

Or is it, “All your beers are belong to us”

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 24, 2010 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Considering local micros cost as much as Bud et al, why WOULD people buy that stuff anyway?

by ryebr3ad on Aug 23, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

Conditioning.

And I’m not talking about the beer.

Mean the conditioning brought about by a company with a bajillion-dollar advertising budget vs. one with $0, like East End.

I have and will tell people I see drinking Bud at the ballpark: “Thanks, you just paid Pujols another ten cents to kick our ass.”

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Budweiser is the worst.

Not only is it terrible beer, but they stole their entire schtick wholesale from a much better brewery: Budweiser Bier Bürgerbräu. They’ve been brewing since 1795. They’re called Budweiser because they were founded in the Czech city of Budweis (then part of the Kingdom of Bohemia). They’re the “King of Beers” and have a crown on their label because they were the official supplier of beer for the court of the King of Württemberg.

That’s why Anheuser-Busch isn’t allowed to sell “Budweiser” under that mark in Europe – because they’re a pack of dirty rotten thieves.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm very familiar with that case

and you nailed it. They are a horrible company, and it served them right to have been bought up by a Belgian brewery.

by RichieHebner on Aug 23, 2010 11:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

One of the few interesting facts about Du Bois, PA

A local brewery put out a beer called Du Bois Budweiser. Naturally, Anheuser-Busch contested the ownership of the name in court. Eventually, the Pittsburgh Brewing Company bought the Du Bois Brewing Company and settled the dispute with Anheuser-Busch.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 24, 2010 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm shocked that "Nutting" hasn't popped in for his two cents worth.

He must be looking for more incriminating pictures or commiserating with “sweetleb” on a joint post.

by patthatt on Aug 22, 2010 10:26 PM EDT reply actions  

I think he was busy posting his AP piece.

by TravisDW on Aug 22, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

And....

Both NuttingHostage and Daquido have been quiet on Teh Twitterz.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 22, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

They are probably trying to take credit for this, as if their incessant whining to Stark, Law, etc. led the AP to check it all out. Either that or their mothers have grounded them from internet access for a week.

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 Aug 22, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Twins are the team I'd most like us to model ourselves after..

Small market team who has increasingly upped the payroll as they’ve competed. The best thing about the Twins (Very debatable) was their locking up of Joe Mauer. Mauer’s going to have to play his ass off and be very lucky health wise to live up to that contract, but it was still the right thing.

Mauer as a hometown kid, a legend in that St. Paul area for a decade, and an incredibly productive player at a tough position, he was a must sign. The Twins made a statement to the Yanks, Mets, Sox, and all the big market teams out there that there’s some guys that can’t be bought out.

Honestly, if Neil Walker produces steadily for the next two to three years I wouldn’t mind seeing us lock him up long term. Not to compare Walker to Mauer, because one is an unproven 2B and the other is a future 1st ballot HOF, but the principle remains the same.

The next five years, not the past 18, will be the greatest indicator of the direction of the team.

by jlk9697 on Aug 22, 2010 10:38 PM EDT reply actions  

mauer, really?

one player, making around 190MM, sounds smart to you? granted, hes a great catcher, but that much money for one dude? less than a decade ago, the Twins payroll was 9 million… for the whole team!!! the team was nearly disbanded along with the expos, even though carl pohlad was a legitimate cheapskate and the minneapolis market much larger than Pitts. you think if carl pohlad was still tickin that he would have signed Mauer for that much? lets be real here, the twins are banking on their new stadium being a huge hit, but if the team starts going downhill, u think they will kick themselves for that contract? and remember, right now the Twins have two of the worst minor league teams in baseball…. with all that money tied to one player, be prepared to eventually say goodbye to morneau and quite a few others.

by white angus on Aug 22, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think you and alot of others realize the implications of letting Mauer walk...

Baseball may never have rebounded in Minnesota if they didn’t pony up the cash and prove the fans they would. If it wasn’t Mauer, then who would it be? Look at the LeBron James fiasco for Cleveland, and then take LeBron James and make him an all-around selfless, humble guy and you have Joe Mauer. It’s just really hard to relate the Mauer-Minnesota relationship to any other player-team in any sport right now.

Yes, they’re on the hook for 23 million every season for the next 8 years, but I don’t think they’ll regret it for a second. Mauer should continue to provide great defensive value for at least another five years into his early 30’s. It’s my guess that after that he’ll probably sink to league average behind the dish and the last year of that contract he could very well be a DH or 1B. Mauer was worth 8.7 WAR in ’08 and 7.9 WAR in ’09.

If you’re starting a franchise, I think you’re going to be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of players you’d take over Mauer.

by jlk9697 on Aug 22, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

To add to this. We as fans tend to look at players salaries and compare them to wins. But at least to some degree they are simply assets. That money spent on mauer may be worth win or lose if he’s still putting buts in the seats.

Put on your dancin' shoes.

by PensFan024 on Aug 23, 2010 1:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

That’s a great WAR, but he’s exactly the kind of guy the Twins need to avoid. A huge asset allocation for a small/mid-market team. They’ve done so well the past 10 years with fiscal restraint.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

If Mauer weren't from the area, I'd have a harder time arguing you..

Just the fact that he alone will bring people into the new stadium, combined with any sponsorship deals he has in the city, and merchandise sales, the guy is a Minnesota gold mine.

Under normal circumstances, it’s hard to argue paying any player 20 plus million unless you’re in a major LA, NY, Chi market, but Mauer is the exception to that rule.

by jlk9697 on Aug 23, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not trying to argue the main point here, but...

The Twins are not a “small market” team in the way the Pirates are. The Population of the Minneapolis Metro Area is 40% larger than Pittsburgh (more than 900,000 in raw numbers). There is almost no way the Pirates will ever have as high of revenue streams as the Twins can have.

Also, Mauer has been very good so far in his career, but given that he is only in his 7th season, he still has a long way to go before he is a “future 1st ballot HOF”

by Wizard Imp on Aug 22, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

If he died tomorrow...

he may still get in, but I feel pretty confident he’ll be a 1st ballot by the end of his career.

Right now, career .327 hitter, 1 MVP, 2 GG’s, 4 all star appearances, three batting titles, and for the new-age stat guys among us: 1st in the AL in WAR for ’08 and ’09…

Point taken on the Minny Metro area though, much larger than I’d realized…

by jlk9697 on Aug 22, 2010 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Look at baseball reference

Mauer’s 3rd most similar batter at this age is……….Jason Kendall. If Mauer suffers a freak injury like Kendall tomorrow, and then his numbers decline precipitously in turn, then no way he gets in. Also, according to Fangraphs, Mauer did not lead the AL in WAR in 2008 Grady Sizemore did and in 2009 it was Ben Zobrist. Or did you mean he led the AL in combined WAR for those 2 years? In that case, I think you’re right. Mauer, has had basically 1 dominant year, and several very good ones. There are lots of players with similar results who aren’t in the HOF. IF he continues his current production for several more years, then it becomes more likely, but he needs to keep this up for a good while longer.

by Wizard Imp on Aug 23, 2010 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

One other thing...

If you look at the various HOF statistics trackers on baseball reference, you’ll see Mauer still has a good ways to go to reach those. Again, IF he keeps up his current pace for several additional years, he gets there but that’s not a given. You seem sure that he will do this. I, however, think it is not a good idea to assume anything.

by Wizard Imp on Aug 23, 2010 7:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

You needed to win this argument so bad that you brought out the Kendall card? lol

Don’t cherry pick the similar batters through his age when #1 is Bill Dickey (HOF), #2 Yogi Berra (HOF), #4 Mickey Cochrane (HOF), #5 Derek Jeter (Future HOF)..

Out of the top 5 guys he’s a comparable batter to through 26, you picked the one that isn’t a hall of famer or surefire hall of famer..

On the other argument, I did mean combined for the past two years, probably should’ve been more clear about that. Also, #1 at the catcher position both years individually and combined.

by jlk9697 on Aug 23, 2010 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

The point with bringing up Kendall....

was that he had a similar early career arc but then fell off drastically after suffering a couple serious injuries. Who’s to say the same thing doesn’t happen to Mauer? (NOTE: I’m not saying Kendall was as good as Mauer before he got hurt, just that he was clearly a very similar player who was an excellent player in his own right).

I guess my original post was more of a knee jerk objection I have for any reference to a player as a “future hall of famer” after only 4 or 5 good seasons. That kind of production gives someone a strong start toward the HOF, but it needs to be sustained for a much longer period of time – I just hate hearing someone called a future hall of famer when he hasn’t been in the laegue for even 10 years yet . If you had simply said “future first ballot HOF IF he keeps up this production for several more years” (which seems to be what you meant) then I wouldn’t have even brougt it up.

by Wizard Imp on Aug 23, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

On the non-sequiturs mentioned in the update:

You see, Charlie, the Pirates were spending as much as the Brewers and Rays were when they were winning those World Series and division titles in 1909. It’s simple logic, really.

by Kidspud on Aug 22, 2010 10:41 PM EDT reply actions  

I Heard Bob Nutting is

spending all of the profits at femalegoods,com!!!

He can’t resist the cheap deals!

 ` ╰—┘ 。 ┅★`_、
│\__╭╭╭╭╭__/│   
│           │  
│           │ 
│ ●       ● │ 
│≡    o    ≡│
│           │ 
╰——┬O◤▽◥O┬——╯
   |  o  |
   |╭---╮| ┌┬┬┬┐ 
╞╧╧╧╧══╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╧╡

by EndlessMike on Aug 22, 2010 10:53 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

how much time did that take

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 22, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

my question exactly..

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 23, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

After sifting through 300 endless comments

We have a winner! That was hilarious bud, oh man…..you made my day.

by HoakyPoak on Aug 23, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Today’s news does nothing for me but reaffirm my faith in the current front office. Bob Nutting is not an evil baseball profiteer. He and his staff are just smart enough not to make shallow investments in free agency that would make the big club two wins better while blocking young players and restricting draft spending.

I just get the impression that most of the idiots in this city would like to see the Pirates trade for Carlos Zambrano and Kosuke Fukudome. That way, we’d have such a legitimate team! Our payroll would be $65 million, and we’d have 42 wins instead of 41!

The scary thing is that I’m not kidding. People would rather finish 27th in the league with 60M than last with 35M. It’s true.

by Suffering Buc on Aug 22, 2010 11:34 PM EDT reply actions  

At least they’re trying! Because trying only extends to the major league team, you know.

by ryebr3ad on Aug 23, 2010 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

I’d never show up for that maniac Carlos Zambrano, but I’d be happy about this example simply because I like to see talented players when I pay money to go to the ballpark.

So in the past 5 years spending an additional $15 or 20Million wouldn’t have done a darn thing for winning, but it would have quite possibly made the fans showing up at the park enjoy their experience a little bit more. It’s not a great business move, but might be filed under “the right thing to do” ala Chuck Greenberg when he bought the Rangers:

Brown: On Friday, the first day you took charge, the Rangers rolled out a sweeping group of initiatives for fans. In some senses, the organization has a captive audience. There has been incredible attendance, and the team is sitting well atop the AL West. Often times, ownership cuts prices when they are suffering at the gate. So, it begs the question: Why now?

Greenberg: Because it’s all a matter of doing the right thing. You don’t do the right thing because it’s convenient, you don’t do the right thing because it’s strategic, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. And we’ve said for nine months going back when we were selected in December that this franchise really belongs to our fans, and we thought it was important — particularly given how supportive everyone was through and during the process –to show that we really meant it, and that those were not empty words. So what better time to make the point than on Day One?

8/16/10 interview with “bizofbaseball.com”

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

rangers vs the pirates

just to make a point… the dallas/arlington area has MILLIONS of people, while Pitt has less than a million. the rangers also have lots of young talent that they are bringing up to the show, which is what the Pirates are now trying to do. by the way, this all started by the trading of Texierra, which helped the rangers farm system immensely. and another thing: the pirates havent had a “texierra” to trade since… EVER!!!

by white angus on Aug 23, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

To go back even further..

It actually started with the drafting of Texiera, and being willing to pay him a huge signing bonus. The pirates have shown they’re willing to do this as well with Pedro, Taillon, Allie, and Herredia.

Don’t be shocked if they go with a similar approach with Pedro where we flush the system with talent and deal him to a contender willing to vastly overpay. Hopefully we’ll be in contention at that point and Pedro won’t be on the table, but value is value and if the Pirates have a team overvaluing Pedro, Cutch, or whoever than it makes no sense to hold off.

I can only imagine the backlash that would cause tho..

by jlk9697 on Aug 23, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

serious backlash

but if its necessary, do it. if the pirates are “blah” again, and pedro can be had for some very good talent, i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

by white angus on Aug 23, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

you guys missed the POINT

How cool would it be for the Nutting to do something like this ala Greenberg who thingks doing the right thing by the fans (stakeholders) is the best way to manage HIS baseball team. Kudos to Greenberg.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m had too much to drink to read through 217 comments. I’m sure someone has already expressed what I think, but if not: I have absolutely no problem with a baseball owner, even the owner of the worst team in the league, making money. I would say this is a non-story, but the volume of comments refutes my stance.

by bolton on Aug 23, 2010 4:19 AM EDT reply actions  

I have no accounting background whatsoever.

So maybe someone that is familiar with accounting for LP’s can answer a question. Is the annual net profit calculated before or after the cash distributions ($20M) are accounted for?? I’ve tried reading the articles a couple of times, and it’s not really clear to me which is the case.

If the 20M distribution was taken out before coming up with the 2008 net profit…one could say the Pirates would have had a $34.4M net profit had the distribution not been made. If it was taken out after the net profit was calculated, one could say the Pirates actually had a 5.6M deficit for 2008.

That’s a giant difference in appearance to the fans and to the MLBPA.

by Thunder on Aug 23, 2010 6:30 AM EDT reply actions  

CPA here

The distributions have nothing to do with net income. Cash distributions such as these come out of a company’s retained earnings (“RE”). Think of RE as a big savings account. Each year, your net income at the end of the year gets swept into your RE balance. Any distributions to ownership are deducted from this amount and have no impact on profit whatsoever.

by Jeffasaurus on Aug 23, 2010 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

KDKA was indignant this morning that the Pirates dared make money. The text for the bumper saying the Pirates finance story was coming up said “Making a profit !?”. Yes complete with the exclamation point and question mark. You’d think that the Pirates had claimed they’ve been losing money. Oh no, wait that’s what people actually think

Then of course on DVE Prusuita opined “Boy if they’d spend some of that profit on the team they’d make even more money”. And then Krenn woke up for a second and backed him up then went back to sleep.

If the Nuttings won a World Series people would still resent them because they’d say he only did it to make more money.

by TravisDW on Aug 23, 2010 7:34 AM EDT reply actions  

The ownership group and some posters have implied that the owners have not benefited because they have not received dividends, ignoring the $20 million payment for taxes and related party loan repayment, from 2007 – 2009. However this is simply not true. It appears the ownership group is using cash flow for paying down debt and accordingly increasing the equity value of the PBC. It is like getting a $200,000 bonus but using it to pay down my mortgage and claiming that I did not benefit from the bonus because I did not put cash directly in my pocket.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 8:24 AM EDT reply actions  

Good point

But its also not like they went out and bought new cars, mansions with a view of the ocean and an ice cream truck with it, as some would have you believe

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.

by glass0941 on Aug 23, 2010 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

I didn't realize that paying one's debts what such an awful thing.

God forbid the Pirates exercise good business practices.

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." ~Woody Allen

by Willton on Aug 23, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

No where in the post did it say that paying down debt is a bad thing. It simply stated that not receiving dividends does not mean the ownership group received no benefit.

How do you know that paying down debt is a “good business practice”? For example, paying down debt may alter PBC’s cost of capital (as debt generally has a lower cost than equity) and decrease the value.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Right

But why would anyone expect the ownership group to recieve no benefit from owning the team? It’s their capital that permits the team to operate in the first place.

by maguro on Aug 23, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

I detected a spin or belief, whether real or not, that people where equating the ownership groups not electing to receive dividends as a saint-like act. I just wanted to point out that the group still benefits from paying down debt (or reinvesting) the cash flow.

I believe they should receive a benefit. However, in my opinion this benefit should be weighed against the benefits to other stakeholders (e.g. fans). While I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion – paying down debt may negatively impact the performance of the PBC on the field.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

However, in my opinion this benefit should be weighed against the benefits to other stakeholders (e.g. fans).

This statement is an example of the attitude surrounding this pro vs anti ownership debate that bothers me the most. No, you or I are NOT stakeholders in the Pittsburgh Pirates anymore than we are “stakeholders” in Walmart or Starbucks or Home Depot or US Steel or Heinz or Pittsburgh Paints. Unless, of course, you do own actual stock in them, but that’s precisely the point. Few things bother me more about sports than fanbases’ tendencies to believe that they “own” the team, too.

by matskralc on Aug 23, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

A stakeholder in this sense is simply a entity that is affected by the PBC’s actions, policies, plans, etc. So yes, as a fan and customer I am a stakeholder (whether I own stock or not does not impact my stakeholder status).

A management group should weigh the impact of decisions on all stakeholders. However, they have no obligation to act in the stakeholders best interest and by the vary nature of the process are going to act against some stakeholders interest.

However, to view your customers not as stakeholders and not weight the impact to them would be very short sighted.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed....

Heinz and other corporations are “stakeholders” in the City of Pittsburgh. They benefit if the city prospers. That conceptually is what “stakeholders” means in a very simple sense.

www.thehammerspeaks.com
Twitter: @hammerspeaks

by David Todd on Aug 23, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Companies

usually acknowledge the debt they owe the “stakeholders” who buy their products by giving money to charities or sponsoring various fairs and festivals etc. I realize they also get some tax advantages from that, but hell, they don’t HAVE to give.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I respectfully disagree

Taxpayers funded a large portion of the new ballpark. And fans pay big money to see the product. They have a vested interest in the success and failure of the ballclub, both emotionally and fiscally.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

If I steal money out of your wallet to buy a pack of gum, that does not make you the rightful owner of the pack of gum. If I steal your tax money to build my friend a stadium, that does not make you a rightful owner of the stadium.

by matskralc on Aug 23, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

While I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion – paying down debt may negatively impact the performance of the PBC on the field.

Well, it is certainly possible that if ownership had eschewed any profit over the past 3 years and plowed all that money back into major league payroll, the team would haver performed slightly better. But I guess my point is that investors, much like players, need to be paid whether the team is winning or losing. These folks – the Nuttings but particularly the minority owners – are not putting millions of their dollars into PBC for the sheer fun of being part of the most villified ownership group in the history of sports. They expect a return on their investment and will take their capital elsewhere if they don’t get one. Saying that they shouldn’t make a profit unless the team wins is as nonsensical as saying that Zach Duke shouldn’t get a paycheck unless the team wins.

by maguro on Aug 23, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

And furthermore...

Consider the money that was taken out of the club over the past three years. There’s a $9.4M interest payment that the Nuttings wanted to take as equity, but the minority owners wouldn’t let them; and there’s a $10.8M payment for tax liabilities, which payment the Nuttings haven’t made since, to the grumblings of the minority owners.

It’s fair to say that the only money that came out of the PBC was over the objections of the Nuttings; the other $30M in net income was put back into the team. Not in major-league payroll, granted, but in the draft, player development, baseball operations, etc.

The Nuttings are lambasted for running the PBC as a cash cow, when they’re actually trying to run it like a growth company.

by DG Lewis on Aug 23, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly
The Nuttings are lambasted for running the PBC as a cash cow, when they’re actually trying to run it like a growth company.

The Nutting partnership is also trying to change the product they are bringing to market. They are attempting to increase their revenues by providing a high-quality product instead of the low-quality product the Pirates have provided since 1993. It’s akin to the directors of the Yugo Auto Company choosing to become an equal to and competitor of Ferrari, Porsche, Lotus, etc. This change cannot be made whole in an instant.

s.zielinski

by steve_z on Aug 23, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed...

from a dividend standpoint the PBC does not appear to be a cash cow.

It would be interesting to see a further breakdown of their expenses though and seeing what, if any, benefit ownership is receiving.

I believe I read somewhere that Bob Nutting has never received a salary nor has monies left the PBC to fund other business of partners. Given the PBC’s clever wording in the past it is hard for me to not try to read between the lines. For example, that does not preclude owners receiving monies or benefits not encompassed by those statements such as the Nutting Family Trust from receiving a salary or payments.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

I detected a spin or belief, whether real or not, that people where equating the ownership groups not electing to receive dividends as a saint-like act.

Not.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

A financial analysis

I ran some numbers, but they got too long for a comment, so I put them in a new fanpost.

by DG Lewis on Aug 23, 2010 9:09 AM EDT reply actions  

It's also worth mentioning...

…that MLB has rules regarding a team’s debt-to-equity ratio. The decision to start enforcing those after a long period of allowing teams to fall out of compliance was, in fact, the event that precipitated the Aramis Ramirez dump to the Cubs – we needed to unload a large future obligation in a hurry (due to poor planning by the team), and were unexpectedly unable to move Benson to Atlanta because his arm started hurting.

As such, paying down the team’s debt is a necessary step before we’re able to make any significant investments in increased payroll in the future. Without lowering that debt now, we won’t be allowed to add further debt in the form of player contracts later, whether we want to or not. Taking money out of the team to pay down debt is exactly what needs to be done to make a higher future payroll a possibility – although, amusingly, it’s being spun as an opportunistic cash grab by large amounts of the gen pop.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 9:44 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree, paying down debt is not a cash grab; they could have alternatively paid dividends

However I believe the problem that people have with paying down debt, is that it does little in the near term to improve the product on the field at all levels of the organization. I believe most fans would like to see the ownership group take the risk of reinvesting cash flows to improve the product on the field (paying down debt does not represent the same risks as reinvestment). While I agree that paying down debt will free up more cash flow in the future there is no guarantee this money will be used to increase payroll.

You make the statement, that paying down debt is what needed to make higher future payroll a possibility. We have not seen the balance sheet of the PBC and have no idea of the companies current wherewithal to increase payroll. Further, reinvesting the money may produce cash flows that exceed the future incremental cash flow from debt repayment.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well, we know for a fact...

…that not particularly high McClatchy-era payrolls were enough to put the team in Dutch with MLB’s fairly strict debt-to-equity rules. And McClatchy certainly didn’t pay down those debts any more than he had to in order to get into compliance with the rules. So without addressing the McClatchy-era debts, those payrolls will be our effective ceiling going forward. While paying down debt doesn’t necessarily guarantee that we will have higher ML payrolls in the future, NOT paying down debt pretty much guarantees that we won’t.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

I am not knowledgeable about MLB’s debt-to-equity rules, could you point me to a good source?

I don’t agree that the McClatchy era payrolls represent the PBC’s effective ceiling going forward (assuming the PBC does not pay down debt) for several reasons: 1) The payroll is not necessarily paid for via debt. For example, it appears 2007-2010 revenues more than covered salaries (and other expenses). As such, it is possible to increase payroll without impacting debt 2) I assume debt-to-equity ratios are based on market figures, which are dynamic over time as such 2003 equity does not equal 2010 or forward equity. 3) There has been monies reinvested in the PBC since the McClathcy era (e.g. Latin American capital costs) that have changed the equity and/or debt of the PBC. 4) Future cash flow and the ability to pay salaries is a factor of many things in which historical debt may have minimal impact.

I just fail to see how you can reach the conclusion that not paying down debt guarantees the PBC will not be able to raise future payroll.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

There isn't a good source, unfortunately.

But in a nutshell, MLB requires all of its clubs to keep their debt-to-equity ratio below a certain value, to prevent clubs from becoming excessively leveraged. For the purposes of that analysis, future salary obligations to players are considered to be debts. Bud re-introduced enforcement of the rule as a back-door way of indirectly controlling player salaries, since he wasn’t able to get a cap.

It’s possible that the team’s equity situation has changed substantially in the interim – but I wouldn’t bet on it, given recent events (including Nutting’s attempt to have the team’s repayment of his loan converted into equity rather than a cash payment, which was voted down by the minority shareholders – as detailed in the just-released records).

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

See Penguins ...

under the Baldwin ownership for the reason for the rule.

by Bernie6 on Aug 23, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

The thumbnail financial sketch leaves out a huge amount of detail. Nowhere near enough to get a true picture of what’s going on.

by lloyd95 on Aug 23, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Question nobody's asked:

Is the leaker liable for criminal charges?

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 9:51 AM EDT reply actions  

No way.

He’d get fired if they found him out, but leaks are a matter of journalism. There’s no precedent for them to be punished, and honestly, leaks are good for the integrity of American journalism.

by Suffering Buc on Aug 23, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

What if someone at the IRS

leaked the Nuttings’ tax returns? With their SS numbers on them? Still just “good journalism”?

Asking seriously. Can’t imagine there aren’t laws that cover, basically, billboarding a company’s sensitive financial information.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

There are civil remedies.

The company might have privacy tort claims against the leaker. The company can also sue for breach of a fiduciary duty, assuming that the leaker had such a duty. However, you’d be hard pressed to find laws that criminalize making private information public.

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." ~Woody Allen

by Willton on Aug 23, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Different story

The leaking of tax returns, intelligence, etc. is governed by specifically framed criminal statutes. The best they can do here is file a complaint for theft, but little would come if it.

On the general issue, who would own a company and stay with it very long if there was no profit to be had? Paying down debt? That’s good for the franchise’s future spending power? Investing in the amateur draft and international signings? Check. Avoiding additional forays into the vast wasteland of Jeromy Burnitz and Matt Morris? Damned fine by me. So far, so good.

by RichieHebner on Aug 23, 2010 10:53 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Leaking financial records could be considered a federal crime under 18 USC Sec. 1831-32 if the records were considered trade secrets, but that’s probably a stretch. There might conceivably be state laws relating to corporate espionage that could apply. I doubt the Pirates would want the publicity involved with pressing charges, though. I suppose it could simply be considered theft. Not sure about that one.

Disclosure of tax return information by a federal or state employee, or a return preparer, is a felony. I don’t think that applies to just anybody, though.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've seen some...

“guesses” from other sites that the leaker could be a minority owner. An employee can be terminated for leaking the information…but a minority owner…he/she is only releasing information that is provided to them for their own taxes/benefit.

by Thunder on Aug 23, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

The partnership agreement almost certainly includes a confidentiality provision. If the team finds out who did it, there will probably be some sort of damages clause that will come into play.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I wondered if ...

it was one of the large market teams. The reports have to be submitted to MLB as part of revenue sharing.

It’s easy to see a large market team leaking it.

It’s also easy to see a union rep leaking it.

by Bernie6 on Aug 23, 2010 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

My first guess, and this is just wild-ass guessing, was another team, most likely NYY or Bos.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

And from what I know of Coonelly, he would pursue damages a la Inspector Javert.

by RichieHebner on Aug 23, 2010 11:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

off topic

Am I the only person who thinks Bob Nutting looks like a guy who still lives with his parents, not the owner of a MLB team

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Don't wory, I'm an untrained professional" WVPF
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Aug 23, 2010 10:12 AM EDT reply actions  

what?

a for profit enterprise is making money? ludicrous.

i don’t hear any calls for “sale the budweiser!” just because they make shitty beer that could no doubt be improved if they reinvested their profits in making it taste better.

jeebus, in the last few years BP singlehandedly destroyed much of the gulf coast and dozens of financial firms laid waste to the stock and housing markets yet BASEBALL is the place where taking a profit is a travesty?

by johnnycuff on Aug 23, 2010 12:58 PM EDT reply actions  

Actually,

A-B is trying this. They’d be morons to mess with the formula for Budweiser, because they sell an enormous amount of it to people who think it tastes just fine. They’d lose that market if they fooled with the formula. They HAVE however, under cover of some clever brand names (Shock Top, Wild Blue, Beach Bum) you wouldn’t associate with A-B/Inbev without looking closely at the packaging, been trying to worm their way into the craft beer market. (Lest we forget, they ruined Rolling Rock.) I don’t know how any of these beers taste, I know they’re A-B and I won’t touch them, since there’s usually a more real craft equivalent.

I don’t stick strictly with Pa./W.Va. craft, I’ll occasionally get a Blue Moon if it’s the best thing I can find in a bar, and I’ve got two six-packs of Molson XXX in my beer fridge, but given a choice I’ll buy craft. Last game I went to at PNC I had a Railbender from Erie B.C. I’ve had Dogfish Head and Victory there too.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

"They’d lose that market if they fooled with the formula."

Maybe, maybe not. New Coke turned out OK for Coca-Cola.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

I do not believe the issue is with the PBC making money (as people have pointed out the Penguins and Steelers make money, without the public outcry). The issue is with the PBC making money/building value at the expense of putting a quality team on the field.

With beer, you have alternative choices. With baseball, a consumer does not have alternatives in the same sense as beer. In fact, I believe baseball has a federal monopoly exemption.

In addiction, believe there is a host of other issues that make comparing beer and baseball difficult (e.g. funding of facilities)

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 1:45 PM EDT reply actions  

The issue is with the PBC making money/building value at the expense of putting a quality team on the field.

that’s my issue with budweiser. they make beer with subpar ingredients in order to make money at the expense of their product – for example, using rice and just enough barley to meet the FDA standards of what constitutes beer (instead of the real grains prescribed by the style of beer they claim to make) simply because rice is cheaper.

With beer, you have alternative choices

same with baseball. the washington wild things are less than a half hour from downtown, state college and erie are only a few hours and there are other MLB teams after all…

In addiction,

beer and baseball happen to be two of my favorites

there is a host of other issues that make comparing beer and baseball difficult

you’re correct of course, because when comparing two separate things there’s always something that’s not the same. it’s an analogy, not a thesis statement, which means the point is to examine the ways in which they are similar.

by johnnycuff on Aug 23, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you want alternatives for baseball...

…you can go to minor league clubs (Altoona, Erie, etc.) or to indy league clubs (Washington) or to high-level college games or to high school games or to prospect showcases.

by Vlad on Aug 23, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

But with beer, you could buy a beer that does not use subpar ingredients. In fact, you could make your own beer or start a beer company that use the best ingredients. Further, if bud ingredients become so poor, all else being equal, compared to its competitors, eventually they will fail to make a profit. If the market demands bud to use better ingredients, they will either do so or go out of business.

With baseball, I can not start a new club (MLB would not allow it and I believe federal law curtails my ability to). As a fan of MLB in Pittsburgh, I am forced to experience subpar ingredients if I want to go to the game. Worse yet, I now curtail my MLB consumption because of the subpar ingredients. All this while not being able to effectuate the use of par ingredients, because the PBC has found a way to basically guarantee themselves a profit (use subpar ingredients).

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 2:38 PM EDT reply actions  

As a fan of MLB in Pittsburgh, I am forced to experience subpar ingredients if I want to go to the game.

There’s a solution for your dilemma. Don’t go to the games. Spend your entertainment dollars on miniature golf, movie tickets or trips to theme parks. If enough people do this, the team will go out of business or move elsewhere and then it won’t be your problem anymore.

by maguro on Aug 23, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

That is not a solution...

As long as the PBC uses subpar ingredients, they still makes a profit and will not go out of business and will not move elsewhere. Ofcourse, as I mentioned above I can spend less dollars on beer, I can drink non-alcoholic “beer” (wild things, state college, etc.), but if I want to consume beer, which I love, it still is subpar.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Different markets

Budweiser’s competition is Miller, etc. The Pirates’ competition is other entertainment choices, like movies, other sports, golf, whatever. It’s just a different type of market. This has actually been analyzed in examining claims that sports teams bring in revenue. They don’t, because all they do is draw off entertainment dollars from other forms of entertainment. So, in fact, yes, these other forms of entertainment are the Pirates’ competition.

by WTM on Aug 23, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

bob nutting’s new title should be “entertainment dollar parasite.”

i’m not trying to defend them anywhere here. i’m just wondering why the pirates as a for-profit entity are judged differently than others. bobbybo’s earlier point about funding of facilities (which i believe means the taxpayer-funded PNC park) is a good example, since i and other area residents didn’t have any choice whether to contribute. (though being a bucs fan i would have voted for it, were i old enough at the time)

by johnnycuff on Aug 23, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Area residents DID have a choice

and they voted down a … what was it, half-cent or one-cent sales tax?

They got two stadiums shoved down their throats anyway.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes.

Didn’t mean to imply I thought otherwise.

by bucdaddy on Aug 23, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

and Nutting

does not own PNC, so the teams value is decreased even more.

by white angus on Aug 23, 2010 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

I judge them differently because 1) they produce a product I am passionate about and as such have more idealistic standards such as winning equal to or over profit/building value 2) they participate in a monopoly of sorts, as such should have different standards (e.g. energy companies have regulatory bodies).

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 23, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

You will be interested in footnote 13 to the notes to the 10/31 2008 & 2007 financial statements.

by dontgobobbybo on Aug 24, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

If you’re referring to the tax revenues, yes, sports teams bring in tax revenues. The point is that those revenues simply get shifted away from other venues. Every study I’ve ever heard of has shown that there’s no net gain to the taxing authority or the local economy.

by WTM on Aug 24, 2010 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

The chinatown area where the Caps/Wizards play is completely rejuvenated in Washington DC. I have to imagine that quality of living in the area is significantly increased. Property values, commerce and therefore must be increasing tax revenues for the city. But that’s mere speculation on my part.

by lloyd95 on Aug 24, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Question

Does this mean that we can sign Elvis Sanchez and Barret Loux? :-)

by Traco Bucco on Aug 23, 2010 6:42 PM EDT reply actions  

Two things ...

I’d like to see a thoughtful examination of the information from a sports economist.

Second, if it weren’t for the Bucs’ losing streak, this would be a non-story.

by Bernie6 on Aug 23, 2010 8:17 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Authors

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas