Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Well it's all right, if you live the life you please
Well it's all right, doing the best you can
Well it's all right, as long as you lend a hand

Orioles 9 - Jays 4

Boxscore

  1. Recaps:
    • Spencer Fordin:

        It may have been his last start. He may get one more.

        Either way, Josh Towers emptied his verbal reservoir on Thursday night, hitting all the high notes after one of his worst nights at the office. The right-hander got just six outs in Toronto's 9-3 loss, and he let the latest result color the rest of his season.

        "I guess it's what you'd call a roller coaster: bad, great and terrible," he said. "It had highs and lows. I was decent for a little while, but you look at how you finish, right? So I'm terrible."

    • Gary Washburn

        Matt Riley's dramatic and rather disappointing season came to a triumphant end on Thursday. The enigmatic left-hander labored for five innings to beat the Toronto Blue Jays, 9-3, further perplexing an organization that is unsure whether Riley truly has the makeup to be a productive Major League starter.

    • David Ginsburg:

        Miguel Tejada homered and drove in three runs to boost his major league-leading RBIs total to 146, and the Orioles (77-81) rebounded from an early 3-0 deficit to get within four games of .500 for the first time since Aug. 17.

        Tejada's 146 RBIs are second-most in major league history by a shortstop behind Vern Stephens' 159 for Boston in 1949. Tejada has four homers and 15 RBIs in his last eight games.

        Newhan, Larry Bigbie and Jay Gibbons also homered for the Orioles, who have won seven of eight.

    • Mark Zwolinski:

        The Jays jetted home from here last night having lost twice as many games as they won on this nine-game, 11-day road trip.

        Toronto left Camden Yards after taking a 14-hit, four-homer beating from the Baltimore Orioles, losing 9-3 before 18,793 fans.

        The final weekend of a disappointing season begins tonight with a three-game set against the playoff-bound New York Yankees. But the disappointment won't end there for some.

        Shortly after the Jays wrap up their season Sunday, it's expected the coaching staff will lose pitching coach Gil Patterson, and possibly one or two others.



  2. Fordin Notes on Gustavo Chacin and manager John Gibbons:

      Trust your feelings.

      That was the popular sentiment that emerged from the third-base dugout at Camden Yards on Thursday night, in the hours before Toronto's series finale against Baltimore.

      No, it wasn't a Dr. Phil telethon -- it was a manager talking about his future and his current state of mind. John Gibbons, Toronto's interim manager, said he's still not sure what will happen next season.


  3. For more details on the Jays managerial position, be sure to read Mike Ganter's "Gibbons feels hopeful":

      John Gibbons hasn't been told anything officially yet, but he's quietly confident he'll be back to manage the Blue Jays next year without the interim tag in front of his name.

      Gibbons, who took over from Carlos Tosca when the previous Jays manager was relieved of his duties Aug. 8 in New York, took an 18-28 record into play last night.


  4. In "Gibbons expected to stay on" Larry Millson adds his two cents:

      After this sorry season is finished for the Toronto Blue Jays, it is expected that the "interim" will be dropped from John Gibbons's title and he will be the team's manager in 2005.

      Fortunately for his future, the results of the past week won't influence the decision.



  5. Ganter Notes on Carlos Delgado:

      With potentially just three games left in the Blue Jays portion of Carlos Delgado's career, the questions of what kind of sendoff the Jays all-time leader in homers, RBIs, and games played will receive this weekend in the final homestand was on the minds of many. Interim manager John Gibbons was asked if he would consider taking Delgado out midway through an inning Sunday to allow the fans to show their appreciation. "Actually I'd like to see him get 100 RBIs," Gibbons said. "What does he need now, six?"


  6. Following an article yesterday in the Sun, Steve Simmons of the Star asks "Jays headed way of Expos?":

      Godfrey is too close to his job and his players and the daily baseball activity at the SkyDome to fully comprehend the severity of the Blue Jays plight. This is, forget the numbers, the lowest point in their 27-year-history.

      Even Carlos Delgado's status and the possibility of a new manager being named can't muster much conversation -- and worse, emotion -- anymore. It is that dry and that desperate.

      "When the season started, there was more buzz," Godfrey said. "The buzz went silent when the team didn't perform. This was a season if it could go wrong, it went wrong. How do we get people back? You have to play games that matter in September. We have to do that."


  7. In "Few bucks ... no glory" Allan Ryan of the Star discusses the Jays payroll:

      J.P. Ricciardi says it might be impossible for the Blue Jays to win a World Series with their current payroll.

      In a wide-ranging interview done as his third season as the team's general manager winds down, Ricciardi said he's humbled by his team's struggles this year, but still confident in his plan.

      He's just not sure a championship is in the cards.

    There's a lot of good stuff in this article, so you'll want to check it out.

  8. Tonight's 7:05PM EST start at the Dome: RHP Orlando Hernandez (8-1, 2.87 ERA) vs. RHP Dave Bush (4-4, 4.06 ERA). As always, more information in the game preview.


Jays Roundup - Well it's all right, riding around in the breeze | 174 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Andrew S - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT (#29687) #
End of the line isn't the same as bottom of the division. It's alright to do the first, not the second.

Gotta get back to my travels.
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 08:13 AM EDT (#29688) #
Fordin's notes include the 2004 Webster award winners:

Glenn Williams- Syracuse
Aaron Hill- New Hampshire
Ismael Ramirez- Dunedin
Clint Johnson- Charleston
Adam Lind- Auburn
Yuber Rodriguez-Pulaski
Jesus Gonzalez- DSL Jays
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT (#29689) #
How is it even possible for Microsoft to be so incompetent that their crappy browser software can't even be set to block popups? I went to check out the Allan Ryan interview with J.P.R. only to be assaulted by annoying crap. It's not as if there aren't enough reasons to despise the Star.

(Before anyone answers "get Firefox", I do use Firefox... but this is at work, so I can't be installing stuff w/o permission...)

For those who are Star site "members" or whatever, is that crap turned off for you? Or are you subjected to it too?
_Jonny German - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 08:46 AM EDT (#29690) #
Actually, the latest update to Windows XP included a pop-up blocker for IE... this is amusing when it blocks pop-ups on Microsoft sites.
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT (#29691) #
"Israel" Ramirez made #17 and Josh Banks made #19 on BA's top 20 FSL prospects. Ramirez is an unlikely prospect for the Seed of Abraham team :).

Ramirez is an interesting choice for BA. His stuff is supposed to be ordinary, but he does know what he's doing on the mound. Is he a better pitching prospect than Marcum? I wouldn't think so, but it'd be interesting to hear the rationale.
_Chris H - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:12 AM EDT (#29692) #
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/baseball/mlb/09/30/bc.bba.bluejays.exposmo.ap/index.html
Dont know if this article has already been commented on or not. Article about the Jays staying in Toronto and losing much less money then 2-3 years ago...
_Rusty Priske - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT (#29693) #
That Jays are not losing money. I am convinced of this.

That the team has a negative result on its balance sheet doesn't surprise me, but now ask how much money Rogers SportsNet makes off those broadcasts.

It is the same company!
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT (#29694) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Hey all,

Just 12 tickets left for tonight's festivities against the Yankees, and I'd like to fill them. Just $20 for level 100 seats. Prime foul ball territory. I've saved the best seats, rows 7-8, for the few, the proud, the Bauxites.

So if you'd like to join the ranks of:

<.Bermanisms>
"Call me Hank" Aaron "Not Harold" Reynolds
Thomas "The" Ayers "of the world are upon you"
Johnathon Reimer "Reason"
Leigh "Son of Ed" Sprague
<./Bermanisms>

not to mention 3 of the 4 Toronto Baseball Guys, then shoot me a quick e-mail, or post here that you'd like a seat.

Craig, Jonny, tonight's game is just screaming out for more roster members.
_Jordan - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:34 AM EDT (#29695) #
"I never wanted to be a GM, it just evolved for me. And I can't tell you that, beyond '07, I see myself even being a GM. ... Does it get frustrating? Yeah. There are so many things with the job that take away from who you are, what your family is and stuff like that. Spending time with my wife and kids is more important to me than the job sometimes, but sometimes this job doesn't allow you to do that. Sometimes you have to ask yourself, `Is that worth it?' Sometimes, it's not."

JP Ricciardi needs an off-season. Hard as this year has been for us fans, it must have been much harder for him. He needs a break.

For something based on a "wide-ranging" interview, this article was a disappointment: nothing about the Jays on the field, the few successes, the many setbacks, the organization generally -- it's all one big "Don't you feel embarrassed and defeated by your essentially hopeless task, cocky man?" Readers looking for insights from the GM about the Jays won't get them here.
_sweat - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT (#29696) #
Jim, I would love to go, but for game 5 in my best of 5 playoff series. Oh well, I can't be too bitter, after all, I am still playing baseball and it's october!! One week today til i go back to cooperstown and play on doubleday field too. It's definately been a good baseball year.
Joe - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT (#29697) #
http://me.woot.net
I am so glad I've never worked at a place that didn't allow me to install whatever I felt like.

Where I work right now, I can literally change whatever I want about my system, including the operating system (I can use whichever distribution of Linux I feel like). It gives me such flexibility in performing my job, and makes me a whole lot happier.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT (#29698) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
One week today til i go back to cooperstown and play on doubleday field too. It's definately been a good baseball year.


Very cool. What age/level do you play?
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT (#29699) #
Craig, Joe's right. Why are you workin' for the man when you could BE the man?

Come on, Craig, you know you want to BE THE MAN.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT (#29700) #
Great work, Andrew S! The song was End of the Line by the Travelling Wilburys. It seemed appropriate as by the time I do the next Roundup the regular season will be over.

You win 150 million points, a picture of the Travelling Wilburys:



and just to mix things up a little, a picture of an octopus:

_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:55 AM EDT (#29701) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Moffatt,

If you can somehow make it to them Dome tonight - pretty sure you're not in the neighbourhood, I will wear the closest thing to a Cuttlefish hat I have in your honour, my Lakewood Blueclaws cap.

And you get 750 million points.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT (#29702) #
I'd love to, but I'm in London, ON and I've got this thing I've got to attend.

I might be able to make it tomorrow, though. :)
Coach - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT (#29703) #
tonight's game is just screaming out for more roster members

Jim, I don't need a ticket but if you can squeeze in a visitor, I'll drop by. It will be great to meet some e-friends for the first time and see old pals again.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT (#29704) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Coach,

Consider yourself squeezed. Glad you can make the game.
Coach - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#29705) #
it's expected the coaching staff will lose pitching coach Gil Patterson

Zwolinski seems to be the only one reporting this. It may be pure speculation -- the notion that Gil would follow Carlos Tosca to the Mets, who are very committed to Rick Peterson, is certainly fanciful -- but if it turns out to be true, the Jays already have two superb candidates for promotion in Brad Arnsberg and Rick Adair.

According to a lot more sources, including his own "good feeling," it sounds like removing the interim tag from Gibby's job description will happen soon -- here's hoping.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#29706) #
I have a confession. Every time I hear "John Gibbons" I think of some kind of unholy melding of John Tesh and Leeza Gibbons.

Parents: don't let your children grow up watching Entertainment Tonight. That's today's lesson.
_RhyZa - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#29707) #
I'd give him a standing ovation that's for sure.. but with the Yanks in town that may not be such a good idea, a chorus of boos could intervene.
_Tom L - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT (#29708) #
It looks as if JP agrees with what I said yesterday. The Jays cannot compete on their shoe string budget. And it bothers that Ted Rogers is content with a $50 million payroll. Why is he telling everyone that he is committed to bringing back the winning days of the Jays. I cant believe I'm saying this but right now I wish the jays were still owned by Interbrew. They had big pockets, and they were willing to spend a little coin (unfortunatley these funds were not put to good use).
And as for JP he sounds like a man who is on the brink of defeat. Next year is put up or shut up time for him, and if we stumble out of the gate next year, I'm sure alot more people will be calling for his dismissal. Right now it seems as if the organization is in its darkest days of its existence, and the light at the end of the tunnel is still not visible.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT (#29709) #
Right now it seems as if the organization is in its darkest days of its existence, and the light at the end of the tunnel is still not visible.

The good news is that the people in the organization know where the light is and are trying to get to it. So no matter how much people moan, they're not going to make some knee-jerk decision before allowing the plan to play out.

Here's my question: would it be better to spend dollars on free agents now, before the farm system yields the bounty that's charging towards us, or in a couple of years when we're just one or two players away?

Spending more money right now, today, will be throwing money away, unless it's a lot of money. And even then, we'd have a pile of free agents getting crowded out by our guys coming up from the farm.

Bumping payroll way up and buying up marquee players right now makes absolutely no sense unless the team has decided that their draft strategy was poor and that they won't have anything coming up through the minors.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#29710) #
Tom L, if you don't like the payroll, why don't you pony up? Surely you have a spare $25 million a year to vault this team into contention.

It's really, really easy to sit back and spend someone else's money from the comfort of your armchair.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#29711) #
Wow, i really wish JP wouldn't give these anti marketing type of interviews. I realize that it's hard to compete, but I don't like seeing any general manager of any team in any sport come out and say that he doesn't think they'll ever win it all. Just pretend, for the fans sake.

Rusty, I agree with you. I'm probably influenced because I'm reading: May the best team win, Baseball Economics and Public Policy by Andrew Zimbalist. One conclusion that I've got out of the book is that the owners will lie as much as possible about the revenues their teams are making, as it's to their advantage to have a big a loss as possible. When owner 'losses' include items like depreciation on player salaries*, you know that the whole idea of MLB teams losing money is a scam.

*I have no idea if the Jays can do this, I know there's legislation in the states that allows for this.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT (#29712) #
Right now it seems as if the organization is in its darkest days of its existence

I don't agree. I think things are brighter now than they were in the winter of 2001/02.
_RhyZa - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT (#29713) #
Actually, when given reason to cheer I'm sure we can drown them out... My favourite games I've been to have always been against the Yanks, battling the Yank fans and representing for us in whichever section I'm at. By the way, where in the 500's are y'all seated at again, I'll be going tonight maybe I'll join you?
_Mark J - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT (#29714) #
http://toolbar.google.com/
Craig B: Can you install the google toolbar? It includes a popup blocker.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT (#29715) #
RhyZa, we're down in 113B tonight, making the Yankees' lives difficult from close-up.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#29716) #
RhyZa, we're down in 113B tonight, making the Yankees' lives difficult from close-up.

_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#29717) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
But don't fret RhyZa, there's plenty of time to snag some seats with us, or upgrade the ones you have.

You know, they say shameless hucksterism is a hard thing to do, but I gotta tell you, it's not that bad. :)
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#29718) #
http://itsatrap.net/
Moffatt: COMN.
Thomas - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#29719) #
Actually, I may not be able to make it back in time for tonight's game after all. However, I'll be there on Sunday and hopefully Saturday.

Jim, I sent you an e-mail.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#29720) #
I wish somebody would talk to someone high up in Rogers Communications itself to discuss the fiscal situation of the Blue Jays and Sportsnet.

Particularly, I'd like someone to put to them the idea that investing an extra $10 million dollars this off-season will be a sign of good faith to the fans after this horrible year. It will improve the quality of the team (I salivate thinking of the kind of team J.P. could put together for 60 milllion next year) and thus increase revenue for this year and the following year because performance in a given year has carry over into the next several years.

With the kind of viewership the Blue Jays draw (on TV), I see no reason why we should be in the bottom quarter in terms of payroll.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#29721) #
Moffatt: COMN.

Heh. Nice.

I have a set of signs that I put on my office door. I only put one up at time a rotate them every so often.

That one is my favourite only after the one that says: "WARNING: SCOTS IN SKIRTS MAY NOT BE WOMEN". :)
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:54 AM EDT (#29722) #
Right now it seems as if the organization is in its darkest days of its existence, and the light at the end of the tunnel is still not visible

Darkness, for me, is when you have a bunch of average veterans (30-32) playing on a team with not much coming up from the farm. The team might win 70-75 games, but you just know that it's not going to get better for a long time. This team is very far from that miserable place for a fan.

I agree with Jordan. JP needs a holiday, and then settle back to the task of getting maximum bang for his modest buck.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT (#29723) #
I agree with Jordan. JP needs a holiday, and then settle back to the task of getting maximum bang for his modest buck.

Maybe we should get him a teddy bear or something.
_Ed - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT (#29724) #
what do you guys think of this idea. washington was historically an american league team. what if the jays moved to the national league east
and washington to the american league east. we get away from the big spenders, boston and new york , and play national league baseball
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#29725) #
Maybe we should get him a teddy bear or something.

Oooh.. or one of those bouquets of flowers, that aren't actually flowers, but chocolate chip cookies on a stick.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#29726) #
Moffatt and NFH, that was amazing. There used to be sites with Sean Connery and Where's the Man now dog and Captain Kirk screaming Khaan, but I can't find them anymore.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#29727) #
Rogers' losses on the Jays - I'll try to make this simple. Even if the Jays were paid twice as much money as the Maple Leafs for their TV contract, and even if not a single dollar of revenue was added to the Blue Jays' books in 2002, 2003 and Q1/Q2 of 2004, the Blue Jays still would have lost money over that time frame.

Is the Jays' TV contract worth twice what the Leafs' one is? Not on your flippin' life. Probably two-thirds of it.

They are losing money, and losing a lot of it. If you don't understand that, it's because you don't understand the numbers.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#29728) #
No chance of both Baltimore and Washington being in the same division.

Let's face it, no one wants to be in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, so no one is going to go willingly.

Going back to 2 divisions and increasing to 6 playoff teams per league seems like the most practical solution to our problems right now. I wonder when/if it will happen.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#29729) #
and washington to the american league east. we get away from the big spenders, boston and new york , and play national league baseball

I'd be against it, though I do much prefer NL ball.

The problem with it is that you'd lose all your rivalries. No more playing the Tigers, or the Orioles, or the Yankees or the Red Sox. Considering what huge draws the Red Sox and Yankees are, it would hurt attendance, which might cause Rogers to lower payroll even more.

Also, it's not likely the NL East is an easy division, given that the same team has won the division since The Simpsons was a hot new show.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:02 AM EDT (#29730) #
Of course, the reason I can't find the Where's the man now dog is because I"m an idiot, and the actual phrase and site is Who's the man now dog.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#29731) #
Craig,

Before I'm ready to state something like that with such certainty, I'd like to see an independent audit of Rogers' finances. I agree they might be losing money, but if they are it's far less than when Rogers bought the team.

The gain in the Canadian dollar alone will have alleviated a lot of financial stress.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT (#29732) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Craig, Robert,

You know I've always found the perfect place to discuss financial matters to be the 100 level at SkyDome, while sitting next to Aaron. You guys look like you could use some tickets for tonight.

Too subtle?
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#29733) #
Oooh.. or one of those bouquets of flowers, that aren't actually flowers, but chocolate chip cookies on a stick.

That'd actually be pretty funny to do.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT (#29734) #
Sorry Craig, but I'm not convinced that all of Rogers Blue Jays operations (Jays, Sportsnet and the fan) are losing money. I'm not saying that they're not, I suppose they could be. However, I don't believe any of the loss numbers that they publish. So, if they say they lost $50 million, then I'm ready to believe that maybe they lost $20 million.

Baseball owners just have such a long history of lieing about their revenues, and using every trick they can to distort their finances, that I have zero faith in their numbers.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#29735) #
Pistol...some little birdy told me that some roster members have press passes this weekend. So now someone has to buy the cookies and talk them into delivering the cookies to J.P.

So simple, isn't it?
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#29736) #
Jim,

Have you ever considered attending Ivey for an MBA? I think you'd fit in really well at this school. :)
_Tom L - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#29737) #
NFH I agree with you that it would be better if they spend their money later when the prospects dvelopped but there are two things to take in mind.
1. They are only propsects. The chances of them developping into quality MLB players is under 50%. Can we afford to wait for something that may not even happen. I think not.
2. Even if they do develop into quality MLB players, I have no indication whatsoever that Rogers would up the payroll to sign some quality free agents. I just dont see Ted Rogers cimmittment ot winning! Its not like the NHL where players become free agents past their prime. MLB players become free agents right in their prime, and it would not hurt bringing some of these players in know to supplement the younger players. But its wishful thinking, because Rogers rather sit on his big fat wallet than invest in the team.
And by the way, hasnt it been three years since Rogers began whinning about wanting to purchase the dome. While get in done already!
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#29738) #
I agree they might be losing money, but if they are it's far less than when Rogers bought the team.

They are. Losses are way down thanks to better cost management. You can see this from the financial reports... The Jays list $102 million in 2002, but just $56.5 million last year and I'd bet they'll lose less than $40 million (all figures Canadian) this year. They may well lose even less... the dollar keeps looking better (they won't benefit fully from the rise in the Can$ because they probably hedge some against currency fluctuations).

The US$50 million major-league player payroll is only one part of the team's expenses, remember. But each time the Canadian dollar goes up a penny versus the US dollar, it would save them half a million dollars. It's not a huge dent, but it's a nice one.

I'd like to see an independent audit of Rogers' finances

Guess what! You can see an independent audit of Rogers' finances FOR FREE every year... in the annual report. Which must be approved by an independent auditor (in Rogers' case, KPMG). It's great that the team is owned by a public company.

Here's the 2003 Annual Report.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#29739) #
I agree they might be losing money, but if they are it's far less than when Rogers bought the team.

They are. Losses are way down thanks to better cost management. You can see this from the financial reports... The Jays list $102 million in 2002, but just $56.5 million last year and I'd bet they'll lose less than $40 million (all figures Canadian) this year. They may well lose even less... the dollar keeps looking better (they won't benefit fully from the rise in the Can$ because they probably hedge some against currency fluctuations).

The US$50 million major-league player payroll is only one part of the team's expenses, remember. But each time the Canadian dollar goes up a penny versus the US dollar, it would save them half a million dollars. It's not a huge dent, but it's a nice one.

I'd like to see an independent audit of Rogers' finances

Guess what! You can see an independent audit of Rogers' finances FOR FREE every year... in the annual report. Which must be approved by an independent auditor (in Rogers' case, KPMG). It's great that the team is owned by a public company.

Here's the 2003 Annual Report.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#29740) #
Jim TBG,

I don't think I can attend tonight's game, but I will be in the Dome Saturday and Sunday.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#29741) #
Baseball owners just have such a long history of lieing about their revenues, and using every trick they can to distort their finances, that I have zero faith in their numbers.

In this case I wouldn't call it lying, I'd call it "advantageous accounting". Unless the Jays are crying in public about how much money they're losing and begging the city to build them a new stadium so they don't have to move to another city, I'm not really bothered by it.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#29742) #
Here's the 2003 Annual Report.

Interesting stuff. The book value of Rogers holdings in the Jays went from $122.8 million in 2002 to $95.7 million in 2003. Ouch.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#29743) #
1. They are only propsects. The chances of them developping into quality MLB players is under 50%. Can we afford to wait for something that may not even happen. I think not.

The ones we've seen so far are encouraging. Plus, it's not like they have one prospect at each position, they have a number of them. They're well aware that not all of them will pan out.

2. Even if they do develop into quality MLB players, I have no indication whatsoever that Rogers would up the payroll to sign some quality free agents.

Okay, so what's your indication that Rogers will not up the payroll if we're in a contending situation and need another player or two to push us over the top? I've seen no indication that Ted Rogers is an idiot, and if the team is close to winning, that's good for a number of businesses that he owns.

I just dont see Ted Rogers cimmittment ot winning!

In what way? He hired a forward-thinking GM who sold him on a plan to bring this team back to glory, but not only that -- the plan is to stay competitive, that's the whole point of all this pain we're experiencing. To have your team totally stink for a few years when they could be mediocre instead so that they'll be great for years to come is a major, major committment.

And by the way, hasnt it been three years since Rogers began whinning about wanting to purchase the dome. While get in done already!

If it were possible to get it done they would have done it by now. From all reports, the ownership group of the SkyDome are real bears to deal with.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#29744) #
(they won't benefit fully from the rise in the Can$ because they probably hedge some against currency fluctuations).

Page 25 in the report:

The Company uses derivative instruments, including cross-currency interest rate exchange agreements, interest rate exchange agreements, and foreign exchange forward contracts, to manage risks from fluctuations in exchange rates and interest rates.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#29745) #
The book value of Rogers holdings in the Jays went from $122.8 million in 2002 to $95.7 million in 2003. Ouch.

I'm not sure why they took the writedown on book value. The book value doesn't really approximate the real value anyway... Rogers bought the remaining 20% piece of the team this year for $39.something million, so the team's market value would appear to be more like $195-200 million.
_Moffatt - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT (#29746) #
Rogers bought the remaining 20% piece of the team this year for $39.something million, so the team's market value would appear to be more like $195-200 million.

Weren't they forced to, though, out of some sort of contractual obligation? I thought Interbrew had an option to sell, which they exercised, though I could be remembering it wrong.

At any rate, $95.7 million does seem to be a bit of a joke.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#29747) #
Incidentally, Forbes have the franchise valuation a little higher, more like $225 million Cdn. This may reflect a control premium that the Jays wouldn't have to pay on the last 20% of the holdco.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT (#29748) #
I don't know NFH... i agree that there's alot of advantageous accounting that goes on, but it seems like there's also some outright lying (which for some reason i always spell as lieing). Although to be fair, I don't have any evidence that the Blue Jays have done that. Let me just say that I think it's fair to be cynical of owners claims that they're losing money.

I highly recommend the Zimbalist book to anyone who's interested in this type of issue, and has a little bit of financial/economics knowledge.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#29749) #
Yeah, Rogers had a purchase option, and Intrebrew had a put option after December 15 of last year, which it appears they exercised almost immediately.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT (#29750) #
I highly recommend the Zimbalist book to anyone who's interested in this type of issue, and has a little bit of financial/economics knowledge

It's a good book. Keep in mind that a lot of the stuff he talks about with regards to cooking the books doesn't even apply in Canada, though.
_Jobu - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#29751) #
I just want to remind the Mighty Wilner of a little oath he made:

Heck, I'll even mention it to him when the Jays get home from Baltimore, see what he thinks.

That is all.
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#29752) #
It's a good book. Keep in mind that a lot of the stuff he talks about with regards to cooking the books doesn't even apply in Canada, though.

Yeah, good point. He only mentions the Jays once, in terms of teams that are owned by media conglomerates. However, considering Paul Beeston's the one with the famous quote about a team being able to use generally accepted accounting practices to turn a $4 million profit to a $2 million loss, I think that it's quite possible that there's some accounting shenanigans going on in Canada.

Craig, you believe that the Jays are losing money. Do you believe that they're losing as much money as they say they are?
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#29753) #
I'm not sure why they took the writedown on book value. The book value doesn't really approximate the real value anyway...

That does seem odd. There must be some sort of impairment test that's done to try to determine if the value of franchise is overstated.

That writedown would show up in the income statement, so it sounds as if there's a $27 million non-cash loss in there.

I should probably read the statement......
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#29754) #
Something else in the report:

Revenue for Rogers Sportsnet increased year over year (2003 compared to 2002) by 16.5 million.

Let's say payroll was increased by 10 million for next year and with J.P.'s skill that translated into an extra 7 wins (Tango says a win costs 2 million dollars but we know J.P. would make better use of that than the average team).

An extra 7 wins might mean an extra 300,000 people in the seats, which should boost revenue by about 5 million. But I think the gains would be larger than that on the TV side.

In short, I think investing that extra 10 million (especially since the CDN is strong right now) is probably a good risk.

It report states that Blue Jays revenue increased by 2 million and operating expenses fell by about 33.5 million. Net losses went from 54.4 million to 19.1 million. However I don't see these revenues and expenses detailed in the report (maybe I'm missing something).

Since I believe that the profit increases at Rogers Sportsnet are partly due to the Blue Jays (perhaps mostly), I'm willing to say that it looks like, absent detailed numbers and an analysis by an expert in sports finances (like Andrew Zimbalist), the Jays are pretty close to breaking even.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 11:58 AM EDT (#29755) #
Craig, you believe that the Jays are losing money. Do you believe that they're losing as much money as they say they are?

Not sure what you mean. If you mean, "are some of the losses paper losses", then for 2002 and 2003 I'd have to say yes, some are (paper losses that will eventually need to be really accounted for with real dollars, later on). It's quite possible that for 2004, in fact, the Jays will lose less money on paper than they actually drop on the team (i.e. they have to pump more money in to the Blue Jays than the Blue Jays lose on paper). It all comes out in the wash in the end...

If you mean, "are the actual losses, as calculated under generally accepted accounting principles, different from what the Jays claim" then I would say no, absolutely not. The loss is what it is. It's properly calculated. There are no lies there.

If you ask me, do I think the actual cost, overall including Sportsnet impact and the rest, to Rogers of owning the Blue Jays is more or less than the accounting losses, I would have to say I have absolutely no idea.

I know that this is complicated for the layman.

I'll deal with Robert's stuff later, especially his (sorry) ridiculously optimistic assessment of extra payroll on attendance. Attendance is going to plummet next year. Forget about gaining 300,000 butts in the seats... the team may count itself very lucky if it doesn't lose that many.

For now, I'll just say no way are the Blue Jays pretty close to breaking even. Breaking even is a ways away yet, but the team is now on a solid financial footing and the team should be able to absorb those losses with a view to better days ahead.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#29756) #
What I meant is 300,000 more than if they did not raise payroll; i.e. the impact of increasing the payroll by 10 million.
_G.T. - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#29757) #
Anyone know how much the team is getting in revenue sharing? I hadn't heard this discussed at all until recently, though it seems it's been mentioned in a few articles lately (though I don't remember seeing an exact figure).

I have a confession. Every time I hear "John Gibbons" I think of some kind of unholy melding of John Tesh and Leeza Gibbons

Great, thanks NFH. Now I've got that image in my mind, too. That and John Hart...
_Paul D - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#29758) #
Thanks for the response Craig.
I actually need to get off my butt and get some work done, but I look forward to seeing what else you have to say.
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:16 PM EDT (#29759) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3518
Prospectus has an interesting and, I would think, controversial roundtable on Ichiro! (and Tony Gwynn). COMN.
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:21 PM EDT (#29760) #
The book value of Rogers holdings in the Jays went from $122.8 million in 2002 to $95.7 million in 2003. Ouch.

I'm not sure why they took the writedown on book value.


It wasn't a writedown like I was initially thinking of. As of this 2003 report, where Rogers held 80% of the Jays, the team is listed on the Rogers statement as an investment, under the equity method. The reason for the decrease in the investment amount on Rogers' books from $122.8 MM to $95.7 MM is due to the book losses of the team.

For 2003 the team showed a loss of $56.5 MM, of which $36.3 MM was made up of (non-cash) depreciation and amortization expenses. Of that $36.3 million it looks like about $34 MM was amortization of player contracts. It looks like after 2004 there won't be any more contract amortization. But the Jays books in 2003 do show about a $20 MM loss even after factoring out depreciation.

I think the only place where the team's profit could be manipulated is in the rights fees that they receive. Or excessive operating expenses.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#29761) #
What I meant is 300,000 more than if they did not raise payroll; i.e. the impact of increasing the payroll by 10 million.

Possibly. Anyway, I am quite sure that the team has a number of quite financially sophisticated people who have sat down and worked out (to the best the available models can do) what the payroll should be for next year to maximize the team's net revenue both now and in the future. No one can ever "really" know, of course, but I'd be very surprised if the $48 million figure which I understand is still next year's projected salary budget was just picked out of the air!

I'd be very surprised if, just taking into account next year alone, there was a way for the Blue Jays to make more with a $60 million salary budget than a $48 million salary budget. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd have to think it extraordinarily unlikely. Mind you, the time for adding to the payroll (and maybe not just $10 million, either) is not necessarily that far away. Those marginal wins really start to mean something when they push you into solid playoff contention. Hopefully that's 2006! More likely 2007-08, if at all.

Interesting quote from a Ken Fidlin interview with JPR at the end of last season...

As the curtain comes down on the 2003 season, the prospect of a playoff team in 2005 is still alive but only some pleasant pitching surprises will get the team in position to do that.

"I'm not back-pedalling from '05, but I really think this team will blossom to its full potential in '07 and '08. We're going to win maybe 80-85 games (this season).

"If we keep progressing, it's not out of the question we might get close to 90 (next year) and when you get to that level, then we've got to be ready to strike."
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT (#29762) #
the team is listed on the Rogers statement as an investment, under the equity method. The reason for the decrease in the investment amount on Rogers' books from $122.8 MM to $95.7 MM is due to the book losses of the team

Duh. I should have realized this.
_Tom in NY - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#29763) #
So if the Jays are losing alot of money now, they must have never been a real profitable team. Even in the days of 4m attendance, the payroll was higher, average ticket prices were lower and they received no revenue sharing. I'm sure they made something, but it couldn't have been too much. Why is this when teams in far smaller US markets like the Twins can earn a fairly strong profit with much lighter attendance. The curency difference can't be that massive, is it?
_lurker - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:50 PM EDT (#29764) #
I just want to mention that p. 101 of the annual report seems to show that the Jays are paid $12mn for programming rights. I've no idea if this is fair value or not, but maybe others do?
_MatO - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#29765) #
I agree with Robert on the need to increase the budget today. I normally loathe telling people or companies how to spend their money but Rogers had already budgeted $48M US for this year when JP took the job. Well at today's exchange rate that's equivalent to $56M US. In addition, what company has a better understanding of investing in a product with the hopes of seeing a return on that investment. Rogers invests enormously in infrastructure all the time, from cable TV to digital TV to cellular technology with the belief they will provide the company with positive returns but no guarantees that it will. Does Rogers believe in JP's vision? If they do, then now is the time to invest in the team's future.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#29766) #
Craig,

I wish I had as much faith in these financially sophisticated people at Rogers as you do.

It's Rogers Comm that sets the payroll and I don't think there are necessarily a lot of BASEBALL-sophisticated people there (that's why they let J.P. run the team, and wisely so). In order to set the budget at a level that maximizes profit/minimizes loss AND doesn't jeopardize the existence of the team (e.g. you could cut payroll down to 20 million and probably maximize profit, but then your team won't be viable after a few years of that), you have to be able to predict what will happen with revenue at each payroll interval.

To do that you have to know a lot about baseball and about the mood of Jays fans.

If you asked J.P. off the record what the chances were of winning 90+ games next year with a 60 million dollar payroll, I bet he'd say "fair". There is young talent here and it can't all go sour (like Mr. Hinske). The A's and Twins jumped into contention after several years of futility. No one can ever predict with any confidence when a young team is suddenly going to "find it". Fortune favours the brave and I'm convinced that this is a critical juncture in which to invest money in the team.

Here's my attendance equation:

2005 payroll = 50 million = 80 wins = 1.5 million people
2005 payroil = 60 million = 87 wins = 1.8 million people

or

2005 payroll = 50 million = 75 wins = 1.3 million people
2005 payroll = 60 million = 82 wins = 1.6 million people

Is that ridiculous? I might even be underestimating the effect.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#29767) #
Rogers invests enormously in infrastructure all the time, from cable TV to digital TV to cellular technology with the belief they will provide the company with positive returns but no guarantees that it will

Ballplayers are not infrastructure. Rogers are trying to invest in baseball infrastructure... the stadium... but so far have been rebuffed.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#29768) #
Is that ridiculous? I might even be underestimating the effect.

No, it's not ridiculous. Is it true? I really don't know.

I'd like the budget to be $60 million too. Believe me. Wishing ain't gonna make it so.

The marginal revenue from an extra 300,000 tickets, also, isn't going to be $10 million US. I think you'll need to come up with some more $ still...
_MatO - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#29769) #
I disagree. Ballplayers are infrastructure. Carlos Delgado is infrastructure. Roy Halladay is infrastructure. Dave Berg is .....ugh.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT (#29770) #
Anyone know how much TSN pays? That might be a fairer reflection for the right to Blue Jays games than what RSN paid.

Anyway, at 255,000 viewers per game for roughly 120 games, it works out to 39 cents (CDN) per viewer per game. That's based on the 12 million RSN "paid" to the Blue Jays in 2003.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#29771) #
Okay, so it probably won't be so, Craig. But what I'm trying to say is that it makes sense to do so.

What I want most is to have the question put to someone high up in Rogers Comm. Something along the lines of - why is payroll next year going to be 50 million (or whatever), why not 60 million, or 40 million US? I'd like to know what their thinking on this.

The way it stands now, J.P. and Godfrey say only that they are given a budget for the season. That's as it should be, but then why isn't the issue then taken up with someone at Rogers.

I'd love for Mike Wilner to have someone from Rogers itself on his show and allow callers to question the financial underpinnings of the Toronto Blue Jays.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#29772) #
Investing in ballplayers is more like investing in an advertising campaign for cell phones/cable saervices, whatever. You have to decide how much to invest and what effect it's likely to have. Whatever you decide - it's a risk.
_Mylegacy - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT (#29773) #
JP's plan (w/revisions) is working...

By the end of 05 the bullpen could include, at least, Batista, Speier, League, Frasor, Vermilyea, Rosario, Peterson, Houston and Torres. Only Batista and Speier will cost any money.

By the end of 06 the starting rotation will be chosen from among: Halladay, Bush, Chacin, Banks, Marcum, Perkins and Ramirez. Only Halladay will cost any money.

Hudson, Rios, Wells, and Adams are all very good and fairly cheap till 07 at least. Zaun should be back at least for 05 if not 06.

Hinske, Quiroz, Gross, Johnson are on the bubble and if we are to be a championship team they may be gonners.

NO QUESTION; the glass is AT LEAST half full, if not more.
_John Northey - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT (#29774) #
Ah, baseball and finances. Always great fun.

Lets play with numbers eh? I'll use estimated US revenue levels and the exchange rate in April (73 cents via http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/can_us_close.htm) figures rounded to nearest .25 or .1 depending which is closer (ie: .27=.25, 1.12=1.1) to simplify life.

Jays TV Revenue: $120k per game Can = $88k US over 120 Rogers games (based on what I remember reading they were asking for from other outlets such as TSN/CBC/whoever) = $10.5 million US + about 20 games on TSN iirc = $1.75 million totals $12.25 million

US TV Revenue: About $13.9 from national tv rights (via http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/08/28/labor_tv_ap/ listing contract at $2.5 billion for 6 years spread over 30 teams)

Ticket Sales: Lets use $10.82 US as the average price, which is listed as the lowest average ticket price in baseball (Montreal of course). Estimate 1.8 million (at 1.75 right now) sold. Total=$19.5 million (some is shared but lets guess they made at least as much away from home as they had to share at home, a reasonable assumption)

Total Revenue so far: $45.6 million

Revenue Sharing: 2003 was $18,735,000 according to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040925.wxbluejays25/BNStory/Sports/

Total Revenue: $64.3 million

Costs:
Stadium: Lets guess 20% of stadium revenue (I think that was the deal originally) = $3.9
Players: $50 million plus benefits/etc. (lets guess 10% for those although I could be way off) = $55 million
Total: $58.9 million

So that leaves the Jays with $5.4 million for other costs including minor leagues, travel, JP & staff, etc.

Could those things have cost $20 million US ($20 million Canadian at 73 cents plus $5.4 million US)? Possibly.

In 2000 in the Blue Ribbon Report (http://www.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/blue_ribbon.pdf) MLB listed the Jays at around $50 million in local revenue, total revenue in the low 60's to 70's for 95-99, average operating loss between 95 and 99 (payroll around $40-50 million) in the high teens suggesting non-player costs (inc stadium) of $20-30 million.

The Jays non-playing expenses could have increased since 95-99 by $5 million or stayed around the same level. Thus the $20 million loss is a possible figure. No idea how they could've lost $100 million a few years ago ($80 million more lost with a payroll that was $25 million higher in US funds).

Ah, a fun way to kill time during lunch :)
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT (#29775) #
I worry about the offence - where are the hitters going to come from?

One of two things has to happen:

1 Payroll is increased and the Jays are able to bring one or two big bats to Toronto

2 Trades are made such that young pitching talent is exchanged for semi-pricey quality bats.

With either scenario, there is going to be a substantial amount of upward pressure on payroll. But if payroll stays low the offense isn't going to be good. How are the Jays going to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees with just an average offence? Even if your pitching/defense is among the best in the league it won't get you much more than 90 wins with an average offence.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#29776) #
Ballplayers are infrastructure

Ballplayers are human beings. From Rogers' point of view, they are employees. They are not infrastructure. There is no way whatsoever in which ballplayers can be compared to the switches, fibre, relays and towers of a wireless or cable network. I'm not trying to pick on you, Mat, but it's a terrible analogy.

Investing in ballplayers is more like investing in an advertising campaign for cell phones/cable saervices, whatever

A better analogy might be that investing in ballplayers is like investing in programming for a TV channel.

Investing in an advertising campaign for cell phones and cable services is more like investing in an advertising campaign for a ball team, rather than investing in players.
_StephenT - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#29777) #
"it might be impossible for the Blue Jays to win a World Series with their current payroll"

Please, the Marlins won with a lower payroll than the Jays last year.
_John Northey - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#29778) #
Something the Jays could do for PR purposes is work with Delgado and get him signed then announce that the $50 million payroll was increased by $5-9 million to allow Delgado to be signed again. Thus increasing payroll (as probably planned) by about the amount the currency has increased over the last year while gaining a bit of good will in resigning Delgado. If he doesn't sign see if there is anyone out there worth getting before saying one way or the other on payroll. Why spend just to spend? Then if you do find someone do the same trick, we couldn't make it work with Delgado but decided to 'step up' and make it work for -fill in the blank- so the team could be better in '05.

Btw, put Palmero on the list of possible Delgado replacements. JP seemed in awe of him on the radio on Thursday's game. A one year contract, 800-900 OPS likely, get to 3000 hits in Toronto. Why not? Could help stopgap until a long term solution is found.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#29779) #
You can buy Survivor for your TV station, or you can spend a lot less and buy reruns of Shasta McNasty. Not that I'm comparing the Jays to Shasta McNasty.
_John Northey - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#29780) #
"it might be impossible for the Blue Jays to win a World Series with their current payroll"

Hmmm... could JP be publicly pushing for Rogers to give him more money to work with? I suspect he was promised more initially and really wants to resign Delgado (high OBP fits JP's goal) or at least get something decent in addition to the rest of the team.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#29781) #
the Marlins won with a lower payroll than the Jays last year

This is true, but unfortunately Stephen I still can't figure out how they did this. :)
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT (#29782) #
http://khaaan.com/
Paul D, COMN.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#29783) #
You can buy Survivor for your TV station, or you can spend a lot less and buy reruns of Shasta McNasty

No, it's not quite like that. Money put into ballplayers isn't like buying shows. It's like *developing* shows. When you buy 100 syndicated episodes of Shasta McNasty (I have *never* heard of this, btw) you know exactly what you are getting. When you pay some development company a million dollars to make a show for you, you have some idea of what it will be like (based on the pilot) but otherwise you have no idea. You just sort of have to hope it comes out good.
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#29784) #
Total Revenue: $64.3 million

Just pulling from the financial statement total revenue in 2003 was $133.5 MM, and total expenses were $152.6 MM.

There's no breakdown of either, but both seem unusually high.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#29785) #
Shasta McNasty (I have *never* heard of this, btw) you know exactly what you are getting.

Craig, it was on UPN, it starred Jake Busey, it didn't make it through an entire season. 'nuff said.

And yeah, your version is better. ;)
_StephenT - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#29786) #
The Jays are privately owned and we know they will continue to exist; therefore they are profitable in the sense that matters, "economic profit" (let's not worry about "accounting profit").

The Expos were profitable too, for that matter. Ask Loria. MLB paid him $120 million for them.
_MatO - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#29787) #
A cellular tower provides the infrastructure for cellular service which you then try to sell to the general public. Baseball players are the infrastrucure for a baseball team which you try and sell to the general public. One is obviously more fluid than the other but I would still call it infrastructure.
_Niles - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#29788) #
I hope Bush does better in the game than he did in the debate last night.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#29789) #
The Jays are privately owned and we know they will continue to exist; therefore they are profitable in the sense that matters, "economic profit"

This is true in the short term, yes. That wasn't the point that was raised, which was that people thought the Blue Jays were making an accounting profit, just being sneaky and hiding it.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#29790) #
It's been fun so far watching the Cubs crash and burn, hasn't it?
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#29791) #
What I want most is to have the question put to someone high up in Rogers Comm. Something along the lines of - why is payroll next year going to be 50 million (or whatever), why not 60 million, or 40 million US?

I suspect that it's simply the level where they think they'll break even.

With pretty good certainty the team can figure out what the minimum revenues they're going to have. At the point they’re setting payroll there’s next to no risk involved.

If they were to bump payroll up to $60 MM there’s a lot more risk involved. There’s no certainly that the team will win more because of it, and even if that happens there’s no certainty that more eyes will be watching (TV and attendance) to offset the expense. But there is certainty that $10 MM more will be out the door.

With Rogers being a public company they have to answer to shareholders who are looking for the greatest return on their investment.

We can say that investing in the team is a wise move, and can point to examples of where it’s been successful, but it’s not a riskless proposition.

And this is why I think if a team was owned by a rich individual, or a non-public company, who was willing to take risks the team would probably be better off.
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT (#29792) #
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/preview?gid=241001114
Check it out -- David Bush looks exactly like the Jays' mascot! COMN.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT (#29793) #
Right now it seems as if the organization is in its darkest days of its existence, and the light at the end of the tunnel is still not visible.

But one should never assume that the conditions that prevail in the game at this moment are set in stone, and will be in place forever.

For one thing, George Steinbrenner is 74 years old. How many owners, in the history of the game, have had his absolute commitment to winning? To doing whatever it takes to win? He wanted to win so badly he got in his own way and made it impossible for his team to win for more than ten years... Think whoever succeeds him will continue plowing all those revenues back into the product?

For another thing, the whole current dynamic in the business of the game has shifted. Its no longer players vs owners. Its owners vs owners, even though they haven't all figured that out, or are in denial about it, or still hope they can use the players to solve that problem for them. But its a new dynamic, and things should start to reflect that reality sometime during the next decade... its simply inevitable.

I'd like someone to put to them [Rogers] the idea that investing an extra $10 million dollars...

I agree completely - I think it makes all kinds of financial sense. This team has cut its losses enormously over the last three years. I can't find the reference but didn't Godfrey say this week that from losing more than $ 50 million a year, they had the loss down to between $ 5 - 7 million this year? The hard part of that job is accomplished for the most part. Now the product needs some re-investment...

we get away from the big spenders, boston and new york

But five years from now, the big spenders could very well be the Mets and the Phillies. And Atlanta. You just don't know.

You know, Palmeiro really does makes sense as a short-term fix if/when Delgado walks... He shouldn't be that expensive. More than Cat, but less than the $ 4 million the Orioles paid him this year. He needs a platoon partner, because it looks like he can no longer hit LH pitching. But I think the major reason his production dropped this year was not the fact that he turned 40 last week - it was that he left the ballpark in Arlington.

Jayson Stark just put up his award winners - some no-brainers (Barry Bonds, Johan Santana, Bobby Crosby) - one brave but I think right choice (Randy Johnson) - and a couple to argue about. Vlad Guerrero as AL MVP and Jason Bay over Khalil Greene for NL rookie of the year.

Do our defensive experts have any thoughts on Khalil Greene as a shortstop? (I'm talking to you, Dudek! And tangotiger, too.) He looked good when I saw him, but that was just a couple of games. His numbers suggest to me a talented, if somewhat erratic player - i.e. a young guy still learning the league, his staff, the position. I'm inclined to think he's a better player this year than Bay...
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#29794) #
I hope Bush does better in the game than he did in the debate last night.

And that we don't see Kerry at all.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#29795) #
David Bush looks exactly like the Jays' mascot! COMN

You can't tell me that kid's not an Ace.

("WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH DIAMOND!?!?")
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#29796) #
/rant/

Surely, Rogers must understand that owning a successful baseball team offers them all sorts of benefits that may not show up on the bottom line for several years, if at all. There is the positive image of the company itself - a successful baseball team is a source of pride in the community. It's hard to estimate how much a positive image is worth to a company in a competitive wireless/cable market place, but it must be significant.

Plus there is so much synergy - if the team does better, the TV station does better, the cable operation does better and there are more people exposed to Rogers' advertising for its other products.

What the Blue Jays cost to operate is a small fraction of Rogers' overall revenue, and yet it might the most visible product they have in the marketplace.

IMO it would be stupid to run the Jays on a restricted budget and have them continually finish with mediocre records. That certainly isn't the plan - the plan is to have the farm system provide the backbone of the next string of Blue Jays contenders. I just don't think that, in the current baseball climate, that it is likely to happen unless Rogers starts to increase the payroll. And I say, the sooner the better, because otherwise you're going to see those revenues drop because fans are getting frustrated.

THIS IS A CRITICAL JUNCTURE FOR THIS FRANCHISE.

/end rant/
_Jeff Geauvreau - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#29797) #
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cardinals/2004-09-30-carpenter_x.htm
Bad news for ex Jay Chris Carpenter.

COMN

"Carpenter, 15-5 with a 3.46 ERA, has been sidelined with nerve damage in his right biceps since Sept. 18".
_R Billie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#29798) #
Please, the Marlins won with a lower payroll than the Jays last year.

What teams were in the Marlins' division last year and how much were they spending relative to the Marlins? How many down years did the Marlins have for player development before that up year?

If Palmeiro is released by the O's and doesn't cost a draft pick, I'd say the likelihood of him coming to Toronto increases a great deal. If you get Palmeiro and add a trade or non-tender of someone like Carlos Pena or Nick Johnson then your 1B/DH situation is manageable. That is assuming Delgado doesn't turn around and go to the Orioles making them even more of an offensive powerhouse (Roberts, Newhan, Mora, Tejada, Delgado, Lopez, etc would be scary).

I would also say that since signing a compensable (is that a word?) free agent won't cost the team it's first round pick, that if a free agent in their prime was available it would be definately worth spending a second round pick to sign them. Think of it as a trade of a 2nd round calibre prospect who hasn't even reached A-ball yet. If you can get three years of J.D. Drew or Magglio Ordonez in exchange for that I would make that sacrifice every time in order to keep this team above .500. Because without adequately replacing Delgado's presence there is no way they will be over .500 any time soon.

The best situation in my mind is getting an extra $5 to $7 million in payroll for the specific purpose of keeping Delgado so that you also keep all of your draft picks and still allow the team the resources to fill other needs.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:45 PM EDT (#29799) #
Robert,

Good rant, man!
_Ron - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT (#29800) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1892938
Carlos Tosca will be interviewing for the Mets Job. And of course the NY media has also tossed in Cito Gaston's name.
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#29801) #
Magpie, Greene's defensive statistics (zone rating, defensive win shares) are a little better than average. His offence, in the PETCO context, has been very good for a shortstop. He should be the NL ROY.

Because without adequately replacing Delgado's presence there is no way they will be over .500 any time soon.

The best situation in my mind is getting an extra $5 to $7 million in payroll for the specific purpose of keeping Delgado so that you also keep all of your draft picks and still allow the team the resources to fill other needs.


I agree with the remedy, but not the severity of the condition. How this team performs in 2005-06 will be determined by the development of young players, and it is pretty much unpredictable. Can they win without a Delgado equivalent bat in the lineup? I don't think so. Can they finish over .500 without one? Sure.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#29802) #
What teams were in the Marlins' division last year and how much were they spending relative to the Marlins?

Atlanta (101 wins)- 106 million
Florida (91 wins) - 48 million
Philadelphia (86 wins) - 70 million
Montreal (83 wins) - 52 million
New York (66 wins) - 117 million

They were stuck with two big spenders (twice the Florida payroll). They finished 10 games behind the smart guys, buy way ahead of the dumb guys.
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:09 PM EDT (#29803) #
But I think the major reason his production dropped this year was not the fact that he turned 40 last week - it was that he left the ballpark in Arlington.

Looking up adjusted numbers at BP:

2003 - .248/.355/.491
2004 - .259/.369/.448

I can't say I'd be enthuisatic about Palmeiro on the Jays, but as long as he's being paid in line with 04 performance it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world - he can certainly still get on base.
_Jobu - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#29804) #
New York (66 wins) - 117 million

How a team can consistantly spend so much, and be so bad never ceases to amaze me. Bless you, Mets.
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#29805) #
The Marlins won by virtue of the quick development of good young players, and the managerial prowess of Jack McKeon, with a dollop of good luck to boot.

Unfortunately for the Jays, the Yanks and Sox are both rich and smart so 91 wins will probably not be enough.
_MatO - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#29806) #
http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/chat.php?id=2004100101&rnd=1
BA is discussing their FSL list right now. COMN for a discussion on Ismael Ramirez (pretty high praise) and Vito, Tablado, Davenport and Cota.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:27 PM EDT (#29807) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Is it just possible that the Jays are being coy about the payroll because of Delgado?

If they were to announce publicly that there was another $10 million in the budget for next season, wouldn't Carlos' agent want most of it? On the other hand, if they're still "cash-strapped", they might be able to pleasantly surprise Delgado with a better offer than he's expecting - say 8-9 million - and still have some money left over to play with.
_Tom L - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#29808) #
The Jays will not get lucky like the Marlins, There are only three ways in which the jays will ever be able to compete.
1. Increase the payroll.
2. Switch divisions.
3. Hope that MLB adds more playoff teams.
Without any of the above, the Jays will simply be an average team in an above average division. no amount of kids will make up the NY and Boston's signing of Sheffield's and Schilling's every off season.
Not only this but like hockey baseball needs a new economic system. There has to be a way to limit or cap the spending of the Yankees. If not, and I hate to say this, but the jays may follow in the path of les Expos.
_Caino - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#29809) #
"Btw, put Palmero on the list of possible Delgado replacements. JP seemed in awe of him on the radio on Thursday's game. A one year contract, 800-900 OPS likely, get to 3000 hits in Toronto. Why not? Could help stopgap until a long term solution is found."

Good point. I was thinking that aswell. His option for next year was 4.5 mill, which if Baltimore considers that over priced, his actual value must be significantly less.
I couldn't find his stats, but i know he hit 22 or so dinger thus far. I dunno what his average is, but that wouldn't be bad in the 5th/6th spot. As J.P. mention, he is a fly ball hitter, which would be a refreshing change.
However, that would be dependant on J.P. being able to find a slugger in left feild to fill the 4 spot.
But that said, Cat can play left (maybe not everyday). So maybe all they'd need to find is a slugger who can play D.H. in the 4 spot.
Pistol - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#29810) #
http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/chat.php?id=2004100101
BA Chat on the FSL now. A couple Jays questions already. COMN.
Joe - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#29811) #
http://me.woot.net
Jobu!

Are you coming tonight?

E-mail Jim and come!
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#29812) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
I wouldn't get too excited about jumping out the division just yet. If you recall, when the Raptors and Grizzlies came into existence, there was much gnashing of teeth about how tough the Eastern Conference was compared to the West, where the Raptors meagre win totals would have had them in near playoff contention. Fast forward five years, and the reverse was true.

The Yankees are OLD. Yes, limitless cash patches a lot of holes, but it's awfully tough to just buy starting pitching. They've also had a lot of success picking up BDCs (Big Dumb Contracts) from other teams, like Kevin Brown and ARod, but the sport is moving towards fewer and fewer of those, so that's an advantage that will become less striking as time goes by. Unless the Yankees get back to player development, there's a big crash awaiting the Empire.
_Dean - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#29813) #
I think the BA link provided by MatO is a great read because it explains why they rank certain guys the way they do, the question about the Expo's lefty vs the Olson kid is also great because it clarifies their ceiling calls.
_Jobu - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#29814) #
Jobu!

Are you coming tonight?

E-mail Jim and come!


As Domenican Lou said on weekend update "No..... I have to work". Believe me, I'm upset enough as it is to be missing this game.
_Ducey - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#29815) #
And this is why I think if a team was owned by a rich individual, or a non-public company, who was willing to take risks the team would probably be better off.

I am not sure history would bear you our here at least on the rich owner front:
See: Peter Angelos, Harold Ballard, George Steinbrenner in the dark years, Jeffry Loria, Peter Pocklington, Bud Selig, etc.

There are some owners that do take a financial hit to put a winning team - usually out of ego. But history tells us that the single owner will eventually do whats best for him, even if it puts the franchise at risk. It easy to say "look at the Yankees and George Steinbrenner", well at this stage he is just spending some of his profit. Can you imagine what a mess the Yankees would be at the hands of George if they were losing $100 million every year?
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT (#29816) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Guys,

Thanks to Joe and R Billie, we've just about filled up Row 7 for tonight. Alas, Mr. Ayers is a game time decision.

Surely, there must be at lest a couple more Bauxites out there who want to come to this game! (I know, I know, don't call you Shirley)
Gerry - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:45 PM EDT (#29817) #
Pistol is correct, the Jays lost $20 mil in operating losses in 2003. In addition they have a $36 million write down of player contracts. This write down is akin to their writing down their purchase price. Rogers ascribed some of their purchase price to player contracts so they can write them off now for book and tax purposes.

For 2004 the Jays payroll reduced by a couple of million and the Jays should have saved about $7 mil on lower foreign exchange costs. So the 2004 loss should be under $10 mil (maybe $5 mil with increased revenue sharing). This number has been mentioned here, and in the press, before.

The issue of the Jays TV revenue is separate, is $12 mil fair, I don't know. How much do the Leafers get?
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:49 PM EDT (#29818) #
How much do the Leafers get?

Leafs local TV contract is $140 million over 6 years. Saturday games not included.

$12 million Cdn would be on the lowish side in MLB terms.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#29819) #
Unless the Yankees get back to player development, there's a big crash awaiting the Empire.

Yes. They're heading for the same cycle of frustration that they hit in the late 1980s.

The Yankees run in the mid-late 70s was put together by using the best free agents to finish off a trade built team - the current run used the best free agents to finish off a system built team.

But what's in the pipeline now?
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT (#29820) #
How much do the Leafers get?

I believe it's spelled "Leavers". ;)

**

Would it be a bad idea to ask the BA FSL chat if they knew anything about Tablado's suspension? They've answered a question about him already, but it never came up.
_Ron - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT (#29821) #
The Yankees are OLD. Yes, limitless cash patches a lot of holes, but it's awfully tough to just buy starting pitching. They've also had a lot of success picking up BDCs (Big Dumb Contracts) from other teams, like Kevin Brown and ARod, but the sport is moving towards fewer and fewer of those, so that's an advantage that will become less striking as time goes by. Unless the Yankees get back to player development, there's a big crash awaiting the Empire.

I don't see the Yanks fading anytime soon. They don't need to develop players because they can just go out and sign FA's (although the lack of prospects hurt them in getting the Big Unit). And unlike in Hockey, FA's are in their prime for baseball.

Every year there are quality FA's available if the Yanks want them bad enough there's a good chance they have a shot at signing that player.

Of course some people like to say it's unfair the Yanks and Red Sox are able to have such a bigger payroll than the other 3 teams in the division and wish there was a hard cap .... well I feel like owners have no right to complain (if they are complaining in the first place) because this could have been corrected a few years ago with the new CBA. That's why I'm very interested in the current NHL lockout, the owners say it's a hard cap or nothing, and the players say they won't accept a hard cap .... let's see who blinks first!
Named For Hank - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#29822) #
Personally, I think that every day that the NHLPA and ownership stay away from the bargaining table during the lockout is another day that they're telling fans to screw themselves.

If they had any interest in the fans they'd be working hard on a solution, not sunning themselves on a beach somewhere waiting for someone else to come up with a fix.

As Mr. Cartman said, "Screw all you guys."
_G.T. - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#29823) #
Count me among those that doesn't see a huge problem with the current MLB (or NHL) system. Success of teams like Oakland, Minnesota, etc. have forced the Seligs of the world to stop saying that small-revenue teams can't compete, turning now to saying that Minnesota et. al. won't be able to keep all their stars. They might have up and down cycles. Is that really so bad?

What really amuses me is when people point to the NFL's system as somehow better. Yes, Green Bay can compete with NY (and LA, if there was an LA team). Why? Because when everyone has the same payroll, instead of just the small-revenue teams not being able to keep all their stars, NO team can keep all their stars. Tim Brown and Warren Sapp facing off wearing the wrong uniforms last week was just wrong. I fail to see how that is better for the fans of any team.

(Just a general thought... not suggesting that anyone here has made the NFL comparison. Personally I HATE what the salary cap has done to the NFL. Competitive balance sucks, when it's implemented by punishing the successful)

And for all the talk about how the Yankees added Sheffield, ARod and Brown, they lost Clemens, Pettitte, Soriano, Weaver, etc. It's just like the allegations that the Jays "bought" their World Series titles by signing guys like Morris, Winfield, Stewart, Molitor, etc. ignored the fact that the '92/'93 Jays probably lost better free agents than they signed -- Candiotti, Bell, Henke, Key, Cone, etc.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#29824) #
Every year there are quality FA's available if the Yanks want them bad enough there's a good chance they have a shot at signing that player.

The problem with throwing free agents at an aging team is that the holes start to appear faster than you can fill them.

The Yankees have two - two! - important players younger than 30: Javier Vazquez and Alex Rodriguez. Everybody else on the roster is already in the decline phase of their career. Everybody else is at an age where you can expect them to start having trouble staying in the lineup. Nobody on the roster, with the possible exception of Vazquez, can be reasonably expected to improve on what they're doing now.

Next year, Kevin Brown will be 40. Ruben Sierra will be 39. Kenny Lofton will be 38. Bernie Williams and Tom Gordon will be 37. Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Paul Quantrill will be 36. Mariano Rivera and Jon Lieber will be 35. Jason Giambi and Jorge Posada will be 34.

And who knows how old El Duque is? They list him at 34, he just missed an entire season, and his shoulder's barking at him again...

These guys are going to start falling apart. Probably all at once. In fact, its already started. And not even the Yankees ever sign five big ticket free agents in a single off season. And they already have long term financial commitments to most of these guys already...
Mike Green - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#29825) #
Actually, the FSL chat is very interesting. The comments on Felix Pie illustrate why I take these things from BA with a hugh grain of salt.

By way of background, Felix Pie is a super prospect in the Cub system, and was ranked as the 6th best prospect in the league by BA. At 19 years old, he plays great defence in centerfield, he hits .300, draws a fair number of walks, and has medium range power. The chat guy suggest Kenny Lofton with less OBP as a comparison. Lofton had his first pro season at age 20 in Auburn and didn't hit a lick and had very similar strike zone judgment to Pie, and no power.

Basically, Pie's where Alex Rios was last year, but 3 years younger and one developmental level below. I doubt that there are 5 players in all of the minor leagues that I'd rather have.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#29826) #
I am so VERY pleased. I never, ever, ever cheer for the Braves but I'm rather tickled that the Cubs are now down 4-1 in the fourth.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:32 PM EDT (#29827) #
OK, gang. I'm off to the ballpark (I'm working.)

See you in the Game Thread!
_Jim - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:38 PM EDT (#29828) #
'At 19 years old, he plays great defence in centerfield, he hits .300, draws a fair number of walks, and has medium range power. The chat guy suggest Kenny Lofton with less OBP as a comparison.'

Isn't that what Lofton did in Cleveland. I'd bet you pretty much any amount of cash that Pie doesn't have as good of a career as Lofton. I would pretty much make that wager on any A-ball outfielder.
_gp - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT (#29829) #
Tino might be another decent replacement for Delgado as long as he is salary is reasonable.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT (#29830) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Tino might be another decent replacement for Delgado as long as he is salary is reasonable.

As what? Ballast on the team bus? I'd rather they give Crozier 150 starts than sign Tino.
_Scott Levy - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT (#29831) #
Palmeiro: .292-.407-.504, 18 HR, 68 RBI, 70 BB, 44 K, 373 AB

Those are Raffy's numbers this year against right-handed pitching. If Ricciardi ends up signing him, he should look for a right-handed hitter who can hit lefties to platoon with him. Ironically, someone like Phelps or Werth would have been excellent in a platoon role with Raffy, but it's too late for that.
_Jim - TBG - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:13 PM EDT (#29832) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
35 minutes until I leave for the Dome. Last chance for a great seat to the game. Email me quick, or catch me at gate 5 with $20.
_Tassle - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#29833) #
Just for shits and giggles, Jeremy Bonderman's September line:

ERA IP BB SO BAA
2.53 42.2 14 42 .199

He's 21, people. He's gonna be a stud.
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#29834) #
Wildly off-topic:

I was just fooling around with MLB team stats in Excel and plotted all kinds of different stats against winning percentage for all 30 teams. Guess which offensive team statistic had the highest correlation of the stats I looked at with winning percentage (for 2004, at least)?

Hints:
1) 0.749667 was the correlation.
2) It's not OBA (.714) or SLG (.702).
3) I was very suprised to see it at the top of the list. Very surprised.

If you say Productive Outs, leave the Internet and never return as long as Buster Olney lives.
What a terrible stat: -0.165529. It's good in a Bizarro World way; less is more.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#29835) #
The A's are going to regret, hugely, letting go of Bonderman.

What's even more impressive than his September line is his 2.2 K/W ratio and his 8.2 strikeouts per 9 innings. Opposin hitters are hitting just .247/.323/.414 off him; his 4.89 ERA is the product of some very bad luck, he's pitched much better.

He is ready to become a major star if he stays healthy. And the sad thing for Detroit is, he'll be doing it just as he starts to get more expensive.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:50 PM EDT (#29836) #
Rob, it has to be, has to be, batting average.
_Ryan Lind - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#29837) #
Well, if you mention OBP and SLG, but don't mention Batting Average...

I'm going to guess batting average. :)
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#29838) #
Good guess, Craig. However, 0.571752 is not, is not, 0.749667. ;)
Average is fifth on the list of offensive stats vs. WPct.
OBP and SLG are 2nd and 3rd.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT (#29839) #
This, of course, shows the variance that one-year samples produce. The difference in BA between the best and worst teams is only about 220 base hits, which is pretty significant but doesn't account for much of the variation between best and worst.

IT is true, though, that good teams definitely tend to have higher batting averages. It correlates well with winning, just not as well (over a larger sample) as OBP or SLG.
_Ryan Lind - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT (#29840) #
Oh. Well then.

I'll go way out there...strikeouts?
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT (#29841) #
Wow, I'm shocked. I gotta say, now I have no idea!
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT (#29842) #
Oops. I may have mislead you earlier. It's not just an offensive stat. That is, it's not exclusively offensive.
_Magpie - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#29843) #
We have lineups.

Lofton, cf
Matsui, lf
Giambi, dh
Sierra, rf
Clark, 1b
Phillips, 3b
Wilson, 2b
Flaherty, c
Escalona, ss
Hernandez, p

Adams, ss
udson, 2b
Wells, cf
Delgado, 1b
Rios, rf
Hinske, 3b
Gross, lf
Quiroz, c
Crozier, dh
Bush, p

Yankees showing us the B team
_G.T. - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#29844) #
Oops. I may have mislead you earlier. It's not just an offensive stat. That is, it's not exclusively offensive

Okay then... it must be payroll! :-)
_Ryan Lind - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#29845) #
Uh.

I think Torre accidently mixed up Matsui and Sierra.
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#29846) #
B Team? That's the G or H Team. Ruben Sierra at cleanup? Who's Phillips and when did he become a Yankee? Enrique Wilson is not batting ninth?
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT (#29847) #
Answering my own question: Andy Phillips, 27 year old in AAA Columbus: .318/.388/.569, 51/60 BB/K.

I thought the Yankees didn't have any good minor leaguers...;)
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#29848) #
Ah hell, I'm probably confusing you guys here with the whole mystery stat business. Sorry, I'll just tell you what it is:

But first, sit down.

Are you seated? Good.

In 2004, the offensive team statistic with the highest correlation with winning percentage is The O-Zone Factor.
_Gwyn - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#29849) #
Cubs lose 5-4! The bench staged a 9th inning rally against Reitsma, but came up short. I can handle rooting for the Braves as long as they're playing away.
_Ryan Lind - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#29850) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1892977
COMN for Jayson Stark's seasonal awards. Actually, pretty good, most of them. Loved this:


National League MVP
BARRY BONDS, GIANTS -- We're reaching the point where, if Barry Bonds wants to keep on playing, baseball might need to create two of these awards. One would simply go to him. Every single year. The other would be the If Barry Would Just Retire MVP award. We would be happy to hand out the IBWJRMVP to Adrian Beltre, Albert Pujols or Scott Rolen. But the real MVP? Sorry, there's no debate.


Hehe. One thing though. On his AL ROY vote (Bobby Crosby,) he didn't pick Rios as #2 or 3. Nor did he pick Rios as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best "rookie of the half year." I thought that was surprising. The rookie class in the AL isn't that strong really, and Rios has Crosby beat in a couple categories. Even OBP. Meh. I think I'd take Rios over Daniel Cabrera.
robertdudek - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT (#29851) #
There's a bias when you look at counting stats. Good offensive teams get more chances to get hits, therefore you'd expect an exaggerated correlation between raw hit totals and good offensive teams.

Remember also that correlation does not imply causation. The teams that get a lot of hits just might be better defensive teams (which helps their winning percentage).

It's better to get a large sample of teams - say the last 20 years - and correlate to runs scored. This kind of stuff has been done by many many people.
_Tassle - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:43 PM EDT (#29852) #
Yeah, and he picked John Buck as his #3 at rookie of the half year. How has Rios not been better than Buck (besides the position they play) in the last 3 months?
_Tassle - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:54 PM EDT (#29853) #
Wow, has anyone noticed that Rios hasn't hit any doubles this month? I'm beginning to get a tiny bit concerned about the lack of power.
_Ryan Lind - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT (#29854) #
Wow, has anyone noticed that Rios hasn't hit any doubles this month?

Well, it is the first. ;-)
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#29855) #
It's not just an offensive stat. That is, it's not exclusively offensive.

Oh. Well then. :)

What the heck is the O-Zone factor?
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#29856) #
I think I'd take Rios over Daniel Cabrera

VORP has it Cabrera, 22.7-12.0. Win Shares picks him 9-7.

Overall, I'd rather have had Cabrera. Going forward, I'll take Rios but you don't give ROY votes on "going forward".
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:10 PM EDT (#29857) #
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ozonefactor.jsp?c_id=mlb
It's some new "exclusive-to-MLB" stat. COMN.
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:29 PM EDT (#29858) #
Heh. Looks like a "red-zone" percentage for baseball.

Rob, did you try maybe running the correlations again, but instead of just SLG or OBP, to calculate them like O-Zone? So instead of SLG, calculate SLG-Opponents' SLG, and instead of OPS, calculate OPS-Opponents' OPS. I'd be very interested...
Craig B - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT (#29859) #
It's better to get a large sample of teams - say the last 20 years - and correlate to runs scored. This kind of stuff has been done by many many people.

Right, but this is just a fun thing. Though I'd love to see how O-Zone "holds up" over other years, but we probably don't have the data!
_Rob - Friday, October 01 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT (#29860) #
I didn't even think of doing that OBP/OBP against comparison. Interesting. I'll try that over the weekend. I would do it now, but I've missed the first three innings here answering a bunch of e-mails and I don't want to miss anymore of a game where I can watch the Yankees lose. ;)
Jays Roundup - Well it's all right, riding around in the breeze | 174 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.