Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
He seems like a good guy to have in charge, for sure.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
4E495F57594E09057C5B515D5550125F53513C0 wrote:
Is it easier to win a cup in the NHL? I don't know, but I bet it would be easier for the Pirates to win a WS if Neal could say the same as Morehouse - "if I need a piece to make the team better I can walk in and ask, and I've never been told 'no'".
There is a salary cap. Does adding a piece increase payroll?
No one mentioned this, but drafting Crosby and Malkin saved the franchise more than anything. Many rumors about how the draft was fixed so Pittsburgh can draft Crosby too. Mario almost moved the team or at least threatened to move it in 2006. Jim Balsillie made an offer but couldn't agree on time frame of new arena and when/if he could move the team to Kansas City.
Didn't you want Nutting to come out and speak or be more present in the public eye? Would you recognize Burkle walking down the street before this article?
Is it easier to win a cup in the NHL? I don't know, but I bet it would be easier for the Pirates to win a WS if Neal could say the same as Morehouse - "if I need a piece to make the team better I can walk in and ask, and I've never been told 'no'".
There is a salary cap. Does adding a piece increase payroll?
No one mentioned this, but drafting Crosby and Malkin saved the franchise more than anything. Many rumors about how the draft was fixed so Pittsburgh can draft Crosby too. Mario almost moved the team or at least threatened to move it in 2006. Jim Balsillie made an offer but couldn't agree on time frame of new arena and when/if he could move the team to Kansas City.
Didn't you want Nutting to come out and speak or be more present in the public eye? Would you recognize Burkle walking down the street before this article?
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
363D35393C3D266365122B333A3D3D7C313D520 wrote:
Is it easier to win a cup in the NHL? I don't know, but I bet it would be easier for the Pirates to win a WS if Neal could say the same as Morehouse - "if I need a piece to make the team better I can walk in and ask, and I've never been told 'no'".
There is a salary cap. Does adding a piece increase payroll?
No one mentioned this, but drafting Crosby and Malkin saved the franchise more than anything. Many rumors about how the draft was fixed so Pittsburgh can draft Crosby too. Mario almost moved the team or at least threatened to move it in 2006. Jim Balsillie made an offer but couldn't agree on time frame of new arena and when/if he could move the team to Kansas City.
Didn't you want Nutting to come out and speak or be more present in the public eye? Would you recognize Burkle walking down the street before this article?
They also held the community over a barrel over a new arena and development rights. Rights which, several years later now, still aren't fulfilled. There's still a parking lot in the spot where they just had to hurry up and bulldoze the Civic Arena as quickly as possible.
There's obviously a lot to like about the Pens ownership but we should be careful about categorizing one group as the "Good Guys" and the other bad.
Is it easier to win a cup in the NHL? I don't know, but I bet it would be easier for the Pirates to win a WS if Neal could say the same as Morehouse - "if I need a piece to make the team better I can walk in and ask, and I've never been told 'no'".
There is a salary cap. Does adding a piece increase payroll?
No one mentioned this, but drafting Crosby and Malkin saved the franchise more than anything. Many rumors about how the draft was fixed so Pittsburgh can draft Crosby too. Mario almost moved the team or at least threatened to move it in 2006. Jim Balsillie made an offer but couldn't agree on time frame of new arena and when/if he could move the team to Kansas City.
Didn't you want Nutting to come out and speak or be more present in the public eye? Would you recognize Burkle walking down the street before this article?
They also held the community over a barrel over a new arena and development rights. Rights which, several years later now, still aren't fulfilled. There's still a parking lot in the spot where they just had to hurry up and bulldoze the Civic Arena as quickly as possible.
There's obviously a lot to like about the Pens ownership but we should be careful about categorizing one group as the "Good Guys" and the other bad.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
I get it, the Penguins wins. The Steelers win. That is great. I am also a fan of those teams. I am a huge Steelers' fan. I can't recall the last time I didn't watch the game.
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
It seems to me the plight facing the Pirates is a both/and, not an either/or scenario. I think frequently, especially on this board if I'm being frank, we paint two camps: either Nutting is cheap and not doing all he can to win OR MLB is in the business of screwing the little guy. But, I think that's a false dichotomy. Unfortunately for the Pirates, it's more clear to me than ever that we are like Poland in World War II--precariously stuck in the middle.
Poland, it is said, was the only country to lose the war twice. They were invaded by the Nazis, and then under Soviet occupation. Their people were systematically murdered by both an Axis power (Germany) and an Allied power (Russia). I think the Pirates are like this. (Please don't misunderstand...no, I'm not comparing the plight of a baseball team to genocide. I'm using the double destruction of Poland to illustrate what I see afflicting the Pirates.)
Just like Poland, we (the Pirates) are under attack from the economics of MLB. All things aside, our owner isn't going to take a loss, like probably every other owner in MLB. I doubt very seriously the Steinbrenners or the Ricketts are willing to spend more money than they take in. Do they want to win? Yes. But, they, too, operate within a budget. It's just that their budget is double or triple what ours is. That allows much greater room for error. We see a wonderful example of that this morning with the Red Sox DFAing Pablo Sandoval. He's owed $17 million this year, $18 million in 2018-2019, and $17 million in 2020. In other words, the Red Sox are going to pay him roughly $62.5 million over the next three and a half years to NOT play for them. Such an albatross would cripple the Pirates. We can't sign contracts like that, because if they fail, we're in trouble. Big trouble. But, the big market teams do this all the time. Baseball is an uneven playing field. The fact that every now and then, one of the little guys rises above things to compete doesn't change the fact that for the Kansas Cities, Oaklands, Tampa Bays, and Pittsburghs of MLB, it's an uphill climb and probably always will be until such time as MLB acknowledges this and implements systemic solutions to fix the problem.
That said, this is a both/and problem, IMO. Even in the midst of an uneven playing field, we have an owner who seemingly refuses to invest the necessary capital to put a competitive team on the field. If he gets lucky, fantastic! But our marquee FA signings were either reclamation projects looking to rebuild value, like Russell Martin and Francisco Liriano, or guys who genuinely wanted to play here and took a discount to do so, like A.J. Burnett and Ivan Nova. It's not that we never get to play in the big boy part of the pool. Its that we never even dip our toe in the water to see if we would LIKE to play in the big boy part of the pool. But can you imagine the excitement around this team if we were to actually sign a big time FA?
Now, truth be told, none of next year's FA crop interest me all that much. Arrieta has come back to earth after his 2015. Cueto...IDK...I have mixed feelings. Tanaka's arm is going to eventually fall off. The only FA pitcher that really interests me is Yu Darvish. But imagine the excitement around this team if we went out and offered Yu Darvish say 5 years, $100 million. Yeah, the Rangers would probably match, but what if?
Could Nutting afford that? Almost certainly, even if he doesn't want to take a net loss. But for whatever reason, we don't even try.
Poland, it is said, was the only country to lose the war twice. They were invaded by the Nazis, and then under Soviet occupation. Their people were systematically murdered by both an Axis power (Germany) and an Allied power (Russia). I think the Pirates are like this. (Please don't misunderstand...no, I'm not comparing the plight of a baseball team to genocide. I'm using the double destruction of Poland to illustrate what I see afflicting the Pirates.)
Just like Poland, we (the Pirates) are under attack from the economics of MLB. All things aside, our owner isn't going to take a loss, like probably every other owner in MLB. I doubt very seriously the Steinbrenners or the Ricketts are willing to spend more money than they take in. Do they want to win? Yes. But, they, too, operate within a budget. It's just that their budget is double or triple what ours is. That allows much greater room for error. We see a wonderful example of that this morning with the Red Sox DFAing Pablo Sandoval. He's owed $17 million this year, $18 million in 2018-2019, and $17 million in 2020. In other words, the Red Sox are going to pay him roughly $62.5 million over the next three and a half years to NOT play for them. Such an albatross would cripple the Pirates. We can't sign contracts like that, because if they fail, we're in trouble. Big trouble. But, the big market teams do this all the time. Baseball is an uneven playing field. The fact that every now and then, one of the little guys rises above things to compete doesn't change the fact that for the Kansas Cities, Oaklands, Tampa Bays, and Pittsburghs of MLB, it's an uphill climb and probably always will be until such time as MLB acknowledges this and implements systemic solutions to fix the problem.
That said, this is a both/and problem, IMO. Even in the midst of an uneven playing field, we have an owner who seemingly refuses to invest the necessary capital to put a competitive team on the field. If he gets lucky, fantastic! But our marquee FA signings were either reclamation projects looking to rebuild value, like Russell Martin and Francisco Liriano, or guys who genuinely wanted to play here and took a discount to do so, like A.J. Burnett and Ivan Nova. It's not that we never get to play in the big boy part of the pool. Its that we never even dip our toe in the water to see if we would LIKE to play in the big boy part of the pool. But can you imagine the excitement around this team if we were to actually sign a big time FA?
Now, truth be told, none of next year's FA crop interest me all that much. Arrieta has come back to earth after his 2015. Cueto...IDK...I have mixed feelings. Tanaka's arm is going to eventually fall off. The only FA pitcher that really interests me is Yu Darvish. But imagine the excitement around this team if we went out and offered Yu Darvish say 5 years, $100 million. Yeah, the Rangers would probably match, but what if?
Could Nutting afford that? Almost certainly, even if he doesn't want to take a net loss. But for whatever reason, we don't even try.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
Yeah I get it. There are things we can do better (or more of? you know what I mean). But underneath the issue that we always seem to need to get one more guy (I agree with that) is a more fundamental issue.
I just feel like people these days (not Pirate fans but baseball in general) point to a team like the Royals, announce "see everything is fine!" as if it were the case.
I just feel like people these days (not Pirate fans but baseball in general) point to a team like the Royals, announce "see everything is fine!" as if it were the case.
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
676C64686D6C773234437A626B6C6C2D606C030 wrote: I get it, the Penguins wins. The Steelers win. That is great. I am also a fan of those teams. I am a huge Steelers' fan. I can't recall the last time I didn't watch the game.
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
No Dog it's not quite that different. While it's true that the NHL has a salary cap and MLB does not, teams in both leagues spend money on payroll. MLB teams simply have no maximum or minimum spending limits while NHL teams do have those limits.
In the NHL the upper spending limit (salary cap) for team payroll in 2016-2017 was $73M. The lower spending limit (salary floor) was $54M. The league median (half of the teams above and half below) average spending for payroll was just under $70M.
In MLB although there are no league mandated upper or lower payroll spending limits the teams themselves have established those limits on their own without constraints. Currently the upper limit of spending is $253M (the Dodgers) and the lower limit is $79M (the Brewers). The mid-point spending figure (the median) for MLB is just a bit over $150M.
Info from Spotrac listed salary expenditures for the Penguins in the 2016-2017 season at just under $62M or about $8M under the median for the league. Another way of stating this is that the Pens spent 11.4% below the median in payroll for their league. On the other hand according to Spotrac the Pirates payroll currently is $110M while the league median payroll is $150M. The Pirates are spending $40M below the median which is 26.6% below the median payroll for MLB.
So within the context of their respective leagues the Pirates ownership has chosen to spend $40M below the median expenditure for MLB. The Pens ownership has chosen to spend $8M below the median expenditure for the NHL. If we adjust the dollars for the difference in spending between MLB and the NHL by dividing the median payroll expenditure in baseball ($150M) by the median expenditure in hockey ($70M) we get a value of 2.14. Multiplying $8M by 2.14 to bring the NHL figure in line with MLB the result is $17.12M (compared to $40M for the Pirates).
Looking at both the Penguins and Pirates with regard to spending, the Penguins payroll under the Lemieux/Burkle ownership group would be comparable to a $133M MLB payroll. Of course the Pirates are spending $110M under the Nutting regime. That $23M in extra payroll spending if Lemieux/Burkle owned the Pirates might come in handy if a championship is the goal. In any event it obviously represents a rather large difference in attitude of two sports ownership groups operating in the same market.
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
No Dog it's not quite that different. While it's true that the NHL has a salary cap and MLB does not, teams in both leagues spend money on payroll. MLB teams simply have no maximum or minimum spending limits while NHL teams do have those limits.
In the NHL the upper spending limit (salary cap) for team payroll in 2016-2017 was $73M. The lower spending limit (salary floor) was $54M. The league median (half of the teams above and half below) average spending for payroll was just under $70M.
In MLB although there are no league mandated upper or lower payroll spending limits the teams themselves have established those limits on their own without constraints. Currently the upper limit of spending is $253M (the Dodgers) and the lower limit is $79M (the Brewers). The mid-point spending figure (the median) for MLB is just a bit over $150M.
Info from Spotrac listed salary expenditures for the Penguins in the 2016-2017 season at just under $62M or about $8M under the median for the league. Another way of stating this is that the Pens spent 11.4% below the median in payroll for their league. On the other hand according to Spotrac the Pirates payroll currently is $110M while the league median payroll is $150M. The Pirates are spending $40M below the median which is 26.6% below the median payroll for MLB.
So within the context of their respective leagues the Pirates ownership has chosen to spend $40M below the median expenditure for MLB. The Pens ownership has chosen to spend $8M below the median expenditure for the NHL. If we adjust the dollars for the difference in spending between MLB and the NHL by dividing the median payroll expenditure in baseball ($150M) by the median expenditure in hockey ($70M) we get a value of 2.14. Multiplying $8M by 2.14 to bring the NHL figure in line with MLB the result is $17.12M (compared to $40M for the Pirates).
Looking at both the Penguins and Pirates with regard to spending, the Penguins payroll under the Lemieux/Burkle ownership group would be comparable to a $133M MLB payroll. Of course the Pirates are spending $110M under the Nutting regime. That $23M in extra payroll spending if Lemieux/Burkle owned the Pirates might come in handy if a championship is the goal. In any event it obviously represents a rather large difference in attitude of two sports ownership groups operating in the same market.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
If the Penguins were losing and not spending to the cap, I would be disappointed.
If there was a salary cap in baseball and the Pirates were constantly 11% or 26% lower than the salary cap, I would be disappointed. But since there is no salary cap, I (we) don't know what should be spent or invested into the team.
Are you a Penguin fan? Are the always under the salary cap (I really don't know). But if they are, were you mad in 2013 and 2014 when they didn't spend?
If there was a salary cap in baseball and the Pirates were constantly 11% or 26% lower than the salary cap, I would be disappointed. But since there is no salary cap, I (we) don't know what should be spent or invested into the team.
Are you a Penguin fan? Are the always under the salary cap (I really don't know). But if they are, were you mad in 2013 and 2014 when they didn't spend?
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
Rob Burkle article: Stunning contrast to Pirate ownership
103420282D410 wrote: I get it, the Penguins wins. The Steelers win. That is great. I am also a fan of those teams. I am a huge Steelers' fan. I can't recall the last time I didn't watch the game.
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
No Dog it's not quite that different. While it's true that the NHL has a salary cap and MLB does not, teams in both leagues spend money on payroll. MLB teams simply have no maximum or minimum spending limits while NHL teams do have those limits.
In the NHL the upper spending limit (salary cap) for team payroll in 2016-2017 was $73M. The lower spending limit (salary floor) was $54M. The league median (half of the teams above and half below) average spending for payroll was just under $70M.
In MLB although there are no league mandated upper or lower payroll spending limits the teams themselves have established those limits on their own without constraints. Currently the upper limit of spending is $253M (the Dodgers) and the lower limit is $79M (the Brewers). The mid-point spending figure (the median) for MLB is just a bit over $150M.
Info from Spotrac listed salary expenditures for the Penguins in the 2016-2017 season at just under $62M or about $8M under the median for the league. Another way of stating this is that the Pens spent 11.4% below the median in payroll for their league. On the other hand according to Spotrac the Pirates payroll currently is $110M while the league median payroll is $150M. The Pirates are spending $40M below the median which is 26.6% below the median payroll for MLB.
So within the context of their respective leagues the Pirates ownership has chosen to spend $40M below the median expenditure for MLB. The Pens ownership has chosen to spend $8M below the median expenditure for the NHL. If we adjust the dollars for the difference in spending between MLB and the NHL by dividing the median payroll expenditure in baseball ($150M) by the median expenditure in hockey ($70M) we get a value of 2.14. Multiplying $8M by 2.14 to bring the NHL figure in line with MLB the result is $17.12M (compared to $40M for the Pirates).
Looking at both the Penguins and Pirates with regard to spending, the Penguins payroll under the Lemieux/Burkle ownership group would be comparable to a $133M MLB payroll. Of course the Pirates are spending $110M under the Nutting regime. That $23M in extra payroll spending if Lemieux/Burkle owned the Pirates might come in handy if a championship is the goal. In any event it obviously represents a rather large difference in attitude of two sports ownership groups operating in the same market.
Quail: That was an excellent spot on apples to apples comparison!
Great post!
I just don't get why the Pirates are put down to praise the Steelers and Penguins, especially the Penguins.
Posts about other baseball teams have been deleted on this site. This is about a different team and a different sport. Just another attempt to knock the Pirates. Guess what, I am still a Pirates fan. This is comparing apples and oranges.
No Dog it's not quite that different. While it's true that the NHL has a salary cap and MLB does not, teams in both leagues spend money on payroll. MLB teams simply have no maximum or minimum spending limits while NHL teams do have those limits.
In the NHL the upper spending limit (salary cap) for team payroll in 2016-2017 was $73M. The lower spending limit (salary floor) was $54M. The league median (half of the teams above and half below) average spending for payroll was just under $70M.
In MLB although there are no league mandated upper or lower payroll spending limits the teams themselves have established those limits on their own without constraints. Currently the upper limit of spending is $253M (the Dodgers) and the lower limit is $79M (the Brewers). The mid-point spending figure (the median) for MLB is just a bit over $150M.
Info from Spotrac listed salary expenditures for the Penguins in the 2016-2017 season at just under $62M or about $8M under the median for the league. Another way of stating this is that the Pens spent 11.4% below the median in payroll for their league. On the other hand according to Spotrac the Pirates payroll currently is $110M while the league median payroll is $150M. The Pirates are spending $40M below the median which is 26.6% below the median payroll for MLB.
So within the context of their respective leagues the Pirates ownership has chosen to spend $40M below the median expenditure for MLB. The Pens ownership has chosen to spend $8M below the median expenditure for the NHL. If we adjust the dollars for the difference in spending between MLB and the NHL by dividing the median payroll expenditure in baseball ($150M) by the median expenditure in hockey ($70M) we get a value of 2.14. Multiplying $8M by 2.14 to bring the NHL figure in line with MLB the result is $17.12M (compared to $40M for the Pirates).
Looking at both the Penguins and Pirates with regard to spending, the Penguins payroll under the Lemieux/Burkle ownership group would be comparable to a $133M MLB payroll. Of course the Pirates are spending $110M under the Nutting regime. That $23M in extra payroll spending if Lemieux/Burkle owned the Pirates might come in handy if a championship is the goal. In any event it obviously represents a rather large difference in attitude of two sports ownership groups operating in the same market.
Quail: That was an excellent spot on apples to apples comparison!
Great post!