Is Marlins’ Hot Stove Spending a Prelude to Another Fire Sale?

5 Responses to Is Marlins’ Hot Stove Spending a Prelude to Another Fire Sale?

1. says:

   December 6, 2011 at 10:16 am

   I’ve been wondering exactly how the Marlins can be forecasting future revenues on their new stadium in Years 2-6 of the Reyes deal (or Years 2-8 of any potential Pujols deal).

   The Mets — in a much larger city and with their own team-controlled television network — witnessed dramatic attendance losses over the past two seasons after opening their new ballpark in 2009. Granted, the Mets share the market with a more successful team and have put out a fairly bad product on the field and those factors might account for some of the lost attendance.

   But wouldn’t the Marlins be subject to the same risk? I don’t understand how a team with a smaller media market that doesn’t control its media rights in the same way the Mets do could be so willing to expand payroll right now. We’ve always known that the Marlins could sustain a payroll higher than the one they’d been putting out for the last half-decade; Bud Selig even said so and shamed them into spending on their own players. But with the lowest revenues in baseball the past several years, I just don’t see how they can be ramping up in this way without the inevitable selloff in a few years’ time.

   Reply
   • William J. says:

     December 6, 2011 at 11:26 am

     The Marlins are absolutely subject to the very same risks, which is why things could get messy if the projections fall short. However, it’s worth noting that the Marlins have been very profitable, likely have a lot of cash, and benefited greatly from public financing. The Mets, however, have a big debt burden from CitiField compounded by the Madoff litigation. If not for the latter, the team would probably be on solid financial footing.

     Reply
     • says:

       December 6, 2011 at 11:36 am

       Loria has been running a low-budget operation and pocketing money for years so between the savings and the revenue sharing, yes, I agree that there are vast cash reserves which can be tapped.

       But, at a certain point, higher expenses reduce profit margins, especially when the novelty of the new (and in my opinion, based on the renderings I’ve seen, hideous) stadium wears off, I can’t see Loria willing to continue funding a team in a market that has been historically cynical and tepid with its support.

       It’ll all eventually crumble for the Marlins. For that reason, I find this offseason spending spree to be pretty asinine.

       Reply
2. T.O. Chris says:

   December 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm

   Wow, four-years $58 million is a real overpay for Buehrle in my opinion when Wilson is available. When you consider that Mark will be 36 in the final year of this deal, a similar age to Wilson when he finishes his next deal, I don’t see how he’s the better option. You could sign Wilson to a 6 year 87 million dollar deal and have him at the same annual average salary through his year 36 season. You can argue that Buehrle is more steady, but Wilson is clearly the better pitcher.

   Reply
3. T.O. Chris says:

   December 8, 2011 at 11:13 am

   Well it looks like the Angels have trumped everything the Marlins tried to do at the Winter Meetings in one day. They just became a scary team by signing Pujols AND Wilson.

   Weaver
   Haren
   Wilson
   Santana

   What a 1-4!

   Reply