1.25 million fans + parking = 55 million in payroll?

[gorillagogo]

RJ -- I'll answer your questions after you answer mine. It's a simple question. Did you even look at the Brewers attendance figures before you asserted that they invested money first and then drew fans later?

Absolutely. Their attendance figures show no correlation with payroll. Tiny jumps in attendance followed by massive jumps in payroll. Looks to me like an investment is being made PRIOR to a spike in attendance that warrents it. Now I'm all ears.

RJR

No correlation? In 2002 they drew 10K fewer fans per game than the previous year. They slashed payroll $10M for 2003. In 2003 they drew 4K fewer fans than 2002 so they slashed payroll another $13M. In 2004 attendance grew by 5K per game. They increased payroll by $12M. They increased attendance every single year afterwards until 2009 when they hit a ceiling at about 37K per game. They also increased payroll every single year in that timeframe. No correlation? What, are you trying to argue it's not a linear correlation?

Just to be clear, that 5K spike in attendance in 2004 was a 25% increase over the previous year. When you're drawing 20K fans one year and then 25K  the next, most people would consider that a bit more than "tiny". Also note that the Brewers went 68-94 in 2003 and 67-94 in 2004, so the spike in attendance wasn't because the team was any better. They started drawing more fans -- most likely due to a recovering economy -- and started investing money in the team similar to levels they had been investing as recently as two years earlier.

[RJReynolds]

I am looking at what happened with the team after the new owners came into town...as that is more appropriate to what is being discussed than a prior owner 8 years ago. Current ownership increased payroll by almost $25 million following attendance jumps of just over 200,000 over a two year period. What you are trying to argue is that there is a direct correlation between a jump of 200,000 in attendance and a payroll increase in the ensuing two years of almost $25 million. Is that correct? If there is a direct correlation it would mean that the average ticket they sold at a price point of about $115 per ti ket. That being patently absurd, it leads one to the obvious conclusion that attendance was not the reason for the payroll spike.

Again I will ask you. The Pirates DID have a massive attendance spike over this past year of 327,000 fans. Any chance we can see an actual correlation in payroll increase? I mean...if a 200,000 increase in attendance over a two year period for the Brewers leads to an almost $25 million increase in their payroll I can just imagine what a one year increase in attendance of 327,000 in one year could do for the Pirates.

Right?

Nah.

RJR

[VaPirate]

for a guy who likes facts you certainly don't take them all into account -revenues for the Brewers would be greater than the Pirate's  due to
1) higher average price
2) parking

further, you act as though the Pirates are raking in record breaking attendance last year.  They averages less than 24500.  The Brewers payroll following attendance of 24k and 25k was $40M and $39M, less than what the Pirates will enter this year with despite greater revenue for the Brewers.

Further, the Brewers invested AFTER they had a core they believed could win, in place.  The Pirates are not there yet.

finally, you fail to acknowledge the most basic fact of all the facts - deep pockets make a huge differences.  An LA investment banker verses a WV whatever.  Start a petition for new owners, that's a long shot but it has better chances then you getting blood out of a turnip.

[gamecckfn]

They also aren't considering trading away their young talent as soon as they get expensive ala Cutch.

RJR

Either are the Pirates.

[gamecckfn]

I understand that the team has debt but a lot of that debt was the choice of the current owners.

 A large part of the purchase price was from assuming debt.  Which means the owners got a major league team for very little cash out of their own pockets.

While the Pirate owners aren't billionaires they chose to purchase the team with debt and that the only way they would pay it down is from revenues produced by the team.

The owners could have sought other investors or they could have flipped the team at a profit after a couple years.  instead they have kept the team as one of the bottom teams as far as major league payroll goes for years.  It doesn't seem to bother the owners but as a fan the lack of urgency in trying to put a better product on the field (which is where the majority of the revenue comes from) is frustrating.

Just becuase Cam Bonifay failed in trying to jump start the team for PNC Park doesn't mean that NH couldn't do better.  If NH couldn't do better than Cam then he shouldn't be a gm.

Actually, the debt was pre-Nutting, and some of the debt disappeared by converting debt into Nuttings shares of the Pirates.  I believe a good amount that McClatchy used to pay for the Pirates originally was money he loaned from the Nuttings.  McClatchy had even less cash to put into the team than Nutting does.  The situation is not ideal, and of course an owner that is a billionare instead of a millionare would be nice.   But it does not seem like that is going to change.  I imagine Nutting wants to win first, and prove people wrong.

Personally, I do not think Bonifay was a terrible GM.  He had a terrible owner limiting what he could do.  Clint Johnston anyone?

[gamecckfn]

How has the performance on the field been since they decided to take a different route to "success"? How have they done in the 8 years since they decided to reverse course? How has that gone? They've been able to pay down a bunch of debt and have had a miserable AAAA team on the field. hoo-****-ray.

If NH is any good at his job at all, he would be able to spend an extra $15 million this year and make the team more competitive. Just because it didn't work for the Pirates in 2001-2003 does not mean that it will never work. NH (supposedly) knows what he is doing. If so, he should not have any problem doing what the Brwers did in 2007. Spend an extra $15 million and increase attendance by 550,000 because the product on the field is one that people will want to come to see.

Unless of course NH isn't very good, in which case by all means they should keep treading water and keeping their fingers crossed that the stars align and everyone in the system hits their ceiling and they somehow find a way to compete at some point in the next 3-4 years.

After all, it has worked so well for them over the past 8 years. Why change?

RJR

This thread is comparing the Pirates and Brewers; how is it they are on such different paths right now.  The last eight years has a direct impact.  The Pirate's made huge mistake and the Brewers didn't.  Those mistake have had and are having consequences all these years later.  the last thing needed is for the Pirates to repeat those mistakes.

The Brewers didn't make mistakes while the Pirates did? Is that what you are saying?

2001

Jeffrey Hammonds salary $6,500,000 for 174 at bats 91 OPS+. Mistake

2002

Jeffrey Hammonds salary $7,500,000 for 448 at bats and 93 OPS+. Mistake
Mark Loretta salary $5,000,000 for 217 at bats and 89 OPS+. Mistake
Jamey Wright salary $4,250,000 for 5-13 record 5.35 ERA 76 ERA+. Mistake

2003

Jeffrey Hammonds salary $8,200,000 for 38 at bats and 33 OPS+. Mistake
Glendon Rusch salary $4,200,000 for 1-12 record 6.42 ERA and ERA+ of 67. Mistake

Funny that these myriad of financial mistakes did not cripple the organization. They took 2004 off, then started pumping money into the team. The Pirates made mistakes and continued to bury their head and wallet in the sand. One team is competitive year in and year out. The other isn't. Guess which one is which?

RJR

Well they did, and then a new owner wiped out the debt.

[gamecckfn]

Correct. They did "go back to prior levels" in 2005. They then increased their payroll to the highest number EVER in 2006 at $57.6 million. This ended with a down season and an increase in attendance of 110,000. So, did they think that this was not working and go back down to pre-2006 levels for 2007? After all, the kids were coming and they could field a pretty cheap, yet talented, team. Nope. They increased payroll another $14 million which led to a team with a winning record and an attendance spike of nearly 550,000.

So yes, Gorilla, spending did, in fact, lead to higher attendance, even after a losing season in 2006, which led to a competitive team, which has led to their attendance being in the 3,000,000 range for the past 5 years in a row. And they just continue to spend. The Brewers ownership learned that investing in the major league product while drafting well is the key to success.

RJR

Ok, one more time. Here's the Brewers payroll and average attendance figures by year:

2001 - $45M, 34K
2002 - $50M, 24K
2003 - $40M, 20K
2004 - $27M, 25K
2005 - $39M, 27K
2006 - $57M, 28K
2007 - $70M, 35K
2008 - $80M, 37K
2009 - $80M, 37K
2010 - $81M, 34K
2011 - $85M, 37K

As  you can see, their revenue gains or losses pretty clearly reflected the previous year's attendance. They lost about 10K fans per game from 2001-2002 and then slashed payroll by $10M for 2003. The next year they lost another 4K per game and cut payroll again by $13M. In 2004 they gained back about 5K fans per game so they bumped payroll up by $12M for 2005.

That was the year they finished .500. They drew another 2K more fans per game and at this point they clearly felt they were close and started jacking payroll up to compete. They suffered a setback in 2006, but still managed to draw another 1K fans per game. To their credit they jacked payroll up another $13M. They got a huge bump in attendance for 2007, and they've been holding steady ever since.

So no, your entire premise that the Brewers invested money first and drew fans later is false. They clearly adjusted payroll in the early 2000s based on the previous years attendance. They slashed payroll in 2003 and 2004 when attendance was declining, then started increasing payroll when fans started coming back to games. They were fortunate to have a solid farm system during that time that produced stars like Braun and Fielder and Weeks. This led to better performance on the field which led to greater attendance.

I think I tried the same thing already and he pretty much ignored it because it showed how much more money the Brewers were able to build up over the years.  Pretty easy to see how they could afford more in payroll now.

[ECBucs]

How close is Nutting to being a billionaire?  I don't think anyone knows his net worth.

The Bucs should have money for 2012 if they choose to spend it, so they had flexibility going into this off season to plan for 2012.

After all they are projecting that 2012 attendance is going to be greater than 2011.  Yet they are still punting or treading water for 2012.  This means that if the team is poor it is probably not going to be able to increase attendance in 2013 unless team performs very well.

[gamecckfn]

So you are saying the Bucs don't have any debt to pay down now?  That is very different than what has been said by many on this board over the years.

Depends on what you mean with this.  They are paying down debt at the rate required by the debt covenants.  They are not paying down debt at an accelerated rate, ie taking profits to pay debt down faster.  Basically it would be like you just paying your mortgage payment.  You have to pay it, and some of the payment goes to principal. 

How close is Nutting to being a billionaire?  I don't think anyone knows his net worth.

Closer than me, but that is not saying much.  You are right, we do not know.

The Bucs should have money for 2012 if they choose to spend it, so they had flexibility going into this off season to plan for 2012.

I agree, I do not see any reason why they do not have a payroll over $60 million.  But, as RJR has been illustrating, maybe they are trying to save up some money like the Brewers did earlier this decade?

After all they are projecting that 2012 attendance is going to be greater than 2011.  Yet they are still punting or treading water for 2012.  This means that if the team is poor it is probably not going to be able to increase attendance in 2013 unless team performs very well.

Like I said, they are making a bad move by not adding another SP and a 1B like Pena or Kotchman or Lee, even on a one year deal.  Money should not be the factor.  I do not know what they are thinking, but they should not expect to keep the attendence high without players having some serious turnarounds.  I do not think we only need Tabata and Alvarez to have good years, but Walker needs to bounce back and McCutchen needs to play a full season.

[Aaron]

One thing to keep in mind......they payroll figures are usually set prior to the season.  The attendance figures are determined during and after the season.  If the Brewers had a spike in both payroll and attendance in 2007......the payroll came 1st.

[gamecckfn]

One thing to keep in mind......they payroll figures are usually set prior to the season.  The attendance figures are determined during and after the season.  If the Brewers had a spike in both payroll and attendance in 2007......the payroll came 1st.

Not really, you would set your payroll based on season ticket sales, which you would know first.  Season ticket base is the core of the attendence.

[ECBucs]

One thing to keep in mind......they payroll figures are usually set prior to the season.  The attendance figures are determined during and after the season.  If the Brewers had a spike in both payroll and attendance in 2007......the payroll came 1st.

Not really, you would set your payroll based on season ticket sales, which you would know first.  Season ticket base is the core of the attendence.

Which is why the Bucs should be able to afford $60 million with no problem in 2012 which makes spending it on Barmes quickly and really not make other upgrades is setting the team up for possible decline.

[RJReynolds]

The net increase in attendance from 2004-2005 shows how much additional revenue (not including revenue sharing, which is the great wildcard in all of this) the Brewers would have in the 2005 off season and for the 2006 season. They had an increase in attendance in 2005 of about 160,000 people. Yet they increased payroll by $18,000,000. From 2005 to 2006, the attendance increased by about 55,000. Yet they increased payroll by another $13 million for 2007. Increases in payroll were not directly attributable to increases in attendance.

Also, the "core" was not exactly there in 2006. Their top hitter was Bill Hall, Prince Fielder did look like a stud, and Carlos Lee was still hanging around. Their pitching staff was Ben Sheets and a bunch of "who is that guy". They also posted a losing record with this "core" in 2006. So, the two year increase in payroll of $31,000,000 was therefore:

1. Not attributable to a sharp attendance spike (attendance rose by only 220,000 over the two year period

2. Supplementing the core (it was not exactly a great core and they just had a losing season)

So...that leaves us with an owner who increased payroll for the purpose of making the team more competitive.

RJR