Are you saying that the ownership and front office lied all those years they said they'd spend when the time was right?
They did spend more. Before selling off last year the Pirates catapulted themselves from 26th to 24th out if 30 in 40 man payroll obligations.
Ownership and the FO did their part. They got us out of the bottom 5 in payroll briefly. What happened? People stopped showing up! So now we're stuck back in the bottom 5 for a while because fans didn't show up. Thanks fans
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
3D343C2D23590 wrote: Are you saying that the ownership and front office lied all those years they said they'd spend when the time was right?
They did spend more. Before selling off last year the Pirates catapulted themselves from 26th to 24th out if 30 in 40 man payroll obligations.
Ownership and the FO did their part. They got us out of the bottom 5 in payroll briefly. What happened? People stopped showing up! So now we're stuck back in the bottom 5 for a while because fans didn't show up. Thanks fans
What's really interesting is that payroll went down for the 2016 season after the franchise attendance record was set in 2015. That turned some fans off so that the 2016 attendance resulted in only the 5th best in franchise history.
They did spend more. Before selling off last year the Pirates catapulted themselves from 26th to 24th out if 30 in 40 man payroll obligations.
Ownership and the FO did their part. They got us out of the bottom 5 in payroll briefly. What happened? People stopped showing up! So now we're stuck back in the bottom 5 for a while because fans didn't show up. Thanks fans
What's really interesting is that payroll went down for the 2016 season after the franchise attendance record was set in 2015. That turned some fans off so that the 2016 attendance resulted in only the 5th best in franchise history.
-
OrlandoMerced
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
I don't think attendance factors that much into payroll decisions. With all the other sources of revenue, I don't think they would use attendance figures like that to dictate budget. I think it's more that they have rather strict player valuation metrics, and in their eyes, there are few times that the marginal return (player to be acquired value added above in house option) exceeds the cost.
-
Bobster21
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
427F616C63696240687F6E68690D0 wrote: I don't think attendance factors that much into payroll decisions. With all the other sources of revenue, I don't think they would use attendance figures like that to dictate budget. I think it's more that they have rather strict player valuation metrics, and in their eyes, there are few times that the marginal return (player to be acquired value added above in house option) exceeds the cost.
Actually, the Pirates have said otherwise. Remember Coonelly's comment a few years back that payroll would increase once attendance increased?
http://isportsweb.com/2011/02/23/pittsb ... ess-model/
Actually, the Pirates have said otherwise. Remember Coonelly's comment a few years back that payroll would increase once attendance increased?
http://isportsweb.com/2011/02/23/pittsb ... ess-model/
-
OrlandoMerced
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
Yeah, I remember that. The team stunk, the roster was full of pre-arb guys and they were trying to sell the town on that Walker/Alvarez/McCutchen/Tabata core. Since then MLB non-attendance revenue has grown substantially in proportion to attendance revenue, I don't think that comment is still relevant.
-
Bobster21
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
7A4759545B515A785047565051350 wrote: Yeah, I remember that. The team stunk, the roster was full of pre-arb guys and they were trying to sell the town on that Walker/Alvarez/McCutchen/Tabata core. Since then MLB non-attendance revenue has grown substantially in proportion to attendance revenue, I don't think that comment is still relevant.
Well, attendance has been good the last 5 years and non-attendance revenue has grown but the Pirates still rank near the bottom in MLB payroll every year while going without the one or two key additions they need to get over the top. It gives one pause for thought.
Well, attendance has been good the last 5 years and non-attendance revenue has grown but the Pirates still rank near the bottom in MLB payroll every year while going without the one or two key additions they need to get over the top. It gives one pause for thought.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
Payroll up, down, whatever. I don't care how much they spend frankly. It does not matter to me if they spent more or less in 2014 compared to 2015.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
-
OrlandoMerced
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
092429383F2E39797A4B0 wrote: Yeah, I remember that. The team stunk, the roster was full of pre-arb guys and they were trying to sell the town on that Walker/Alvarez/McCutchen/Tabata core. Since then MLB non-attendance revenue has grown substantially in proportion to attendance revenue, I don't think that comment is still relevant.
Well, attendance has been good the last 5 years and non-attendance revenue has grown but the Pirates still rank near the bottom in MLB payroll every year while going without the one or two key additions they need to get over the top. It gives one pause for thought. :-?
And the bloated TV deals threw a wrench in the system. The salary ratio between pre-arb guys and FA acquisitions resembles the disparity between a bank CEO and a teller. So instead of paying Andrew Cashner $10M for who knows what, they'd rather focus on developing the in-house options.
And ok, so the Pirates aren't making FA acquisitions, but they've done a damn good job at locking key players up.
Well, attendance has been good the last 5 years and non-attendance revenue has grown but the Pirates still rank near the bottom in MLB payroll every year while going without the one or two key additions they need to get over the top. It gives one pause for thought. :-?
And the bloated TV deals threw a wrench in the system. The salary ratio between pre-arb guys and FA acquisitions resembles the disparity between a bank CEO and a teller. So instead of paying Andrew Cashner $10M for who knows what, they'd rather focus on developing the in-house options.
And ok, so the Pirates aren't making FA acquisitions, but they've done a damn good job at locking key players up.
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
7C4E42425664474E4346494E2F0 wrote: Payroll up, down, whatever. I don't care how much they spend frankly. It does not matter to me if they spent more or less in 2014 compared to 2015.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
This summarizes my feelings perfectly. All the smoke and mirrors about WHAT the Pirates spend is irrelevant. What matters most is IF the Pirates spend (either assets such as prospects/players or money) what is needed to improve the team when they have a reasonable opportunity to be competitive.
As VA mentioned earlier nobody here expects the Pirates to spend $20M for a player. Nobody here expects the Pirates to even have an average MLB team payroll, but there should be an expectation that with increased revenue the payroll for 2017 should be rising modestly if for no other reason than to match inflation especially given that the team is still poised to be competitive with a few tweaks.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
This summarizes my feelings perfectly. All the smoke and mirrors about WHAT the Pirates spend is irrelevant. What matters most is IF the Pirates spend (either assets such as prospects/players or money) what is needed to improve the team when they have a reasonable opportunity to be competitive.
As VA mentioned earlier nobody here expects the Pirates to spend $20M for a player. Nobody here expects the Pirates to even have an average MLB team payroll, but there should be an expectation that with increased revenue the payroll for 2017 should be rising modestly if for no other reason than to match inflation especially given that the team is still poised to be competitive with a few tweaks.
-
Bobster21
Royals' payroll surpassed $130M....
74464A4A5E6C4F464B4E4146270 wrote: Payroll up, down, whatever. I don't care how much they spend frankly. It does not matter to me if they spent more or less in 2014 compared to 2015.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
I think most would agree with that. It's not as if there is a magic number we expect them to hit in payroll. But when the team struggles because they don't fill a key need despite their revenue and an annually low payroll that could absorb a higher salaried key addition, it becomes frustrating to fans.
IMHO, the FO is doing everything it can to be as competitive as possible within the confines of maintaining one of MLB's lowest payrolls annually. They would love to win a championship but not at the price of adding a key player that would take them out of their comfort zone of the 24th or 25th lowest payroll. If Bell and Kang come thru, their lineup should be very competitive (and every team has question marks). But they appear to be going with a suspect starting rotation that will cost less than 15 million total and that's if Hutchison ($2,300,000) makes it. Otherwise it could be about 13 million for 5 starters. Cole and Nova got what they could. Taillon and the other in-house candidates all figure to be minimum salaried. It sure seems like they could afford something like KC gave Jason Hammel in order to add one more legit starter.
But go get a pitcher if you need one.
I think most would agree with that. It's not as if there is a magic number we expect them to hit in payroll. But when the team struggles because they don't fill a key need despite their revenue and an annually low payroll that could absorb a higher salaried key addition, it becomes frustrating to fans.
IMHO, the FO is doing everything it can to be as competitive as possible within the confines of maintaining one of MLB's lowest payrolls annually. They would love to win a championship but not at the price of adding a key player that would take them out of their comfort zone of the 24th or 25th lowest payroll. If Bell and Kang come thru, their lineup should be very competitive (and every team has question marks). But they appear to be going with a suspect starting rotation that will cost less than 15 million total and that's if Hutchison ($2,300,000) makes it. Otherwise it could be about 13 million for 5 starters. Cole and Nova got what they could. Taillon and the other in-house candidates all figure to be minimum salaried. It sure seems like they could afford something like KC gave Jason Hammel in order to add one more legit starter.