MLB Financial Statements on Deadspin & Biz of Baseball

[Outshined_One]

Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bar Rays, Florida Marlins, and LAA Angels

 

Seattle Mariners

 

Texas Rangers

 

Biz of Baseball Analysis

 

The documents that detail 2007 and 2008 for the Pirates, Mariners, Rays, Pirates and 2008, 2009 for the Marlins and Angels are, simply by volume, the largest collection of sensitive financial documents that have ever been released to the public during the Selig tenure; maybe ever.

 

There's not a whole lot of groundbreaking information in there, but it's really interesting if you want to see the inner workings of a baseball team. There's a ton of information in these documents.

 

I'll be adding more teams as these documents become available. For now, the Pittsburgh Pirates are not happy.

 

At the heart of the documents, when calculating Net Income – the “bottom line” – for the club, the Pirates pulled in sizable profits of $14,408,249 for 2008 and $15,008,032 for 2007. Frank Coonely, the president of the Pirates claims that club made a profit of $5.4 million in 2009, a sizeable discrepancy from the amounts within the Consolidated Statements of Operations leaked for 2007 and 2008.

 

...

 

Coonelly said, “"I can tell you for certain there has not been a dime that has left the Pirates organization to fund any other business of any of the partners of the Pirates."

[third eye]

Pittsburgh Pirates

 

Seattle Mariners

 

Biz of Baseball Analysis

 

The documents that detail 2007 and 2008 for the Pirates, Mariners, Rays, Pirates and 2008, 2009 for the Marlins and Angels are, simply by volume, the largest collection of sensitive financial documents that have ever been released to the public during the Selig tenure; maybe ever.

 

There's not a whole lot of groundbreaking information in there, but it's really interesting if you want to see the inner workings of a baseball team. There's a ton of information in these documents.

 

I'll be adding more teams as these documents become available. For now, the Pittsburgh Pirates are not happy.

 

At the heart of the documents, when calculating Net Income – the “bottom line” – for the club, the Pirates pulled in sizable profits of $14,408,249 for 2008 and $15,008,032 for 2007. Frank Coonely, the president of the Pirates claims that club made a profit of $5.4 million in 2009, a sizeable discrepancy from the amounts within the Consolidated Statements of Operations leaked for 2007 and 2008.

 

...

 

Coonelly said, “"I can tell you for certain there has not been a dime that has left the Pirates organization to fund any other business of any of the partners of the Pirates."

 

 

I'd say the $20 million dividend to partners in 2008 is more glaring than the $14 million in net income. There was no real dividend in 2007, but I'd be curious to see what the numbers look like in earlier years. Also, $39 million of revenue from the MLB rev sharing agreement, but only a $51 million payroll? Seems like these financials make a pretty good case for a salary floor in conjunction with revenue sharing.

[ConstableRabbit]

Yeah, it looks like their pretax margin was hovering around 10%. Not sure if that's the norm for other teams, but they clearly had room to increase payroll.

[Outshined_One]

I'd say the $20 million dividend to partners in 2008 is more glaring than the $14 million in net income. There was no real dividend in 2007, but I'd be curious to see what the numbers look like in earlier years. Also, $39 million of revenue from the MLB rev sharing agreement, but only a $51 million payroll? Seems like these financials make a pretty good case for a salary floor in conjunction with revenue sharing.

 

In fairness, the Pirates spent $23m in player development in 2008 and $21m on it in 2007. That's better than the Mariners' $15m in 2008 and $14m in 2007. At least they're putting their money to good use...although, the Pirates' use of derivatives and interest rate swaps is not something I'd like to see on the financial statement of a MLB team.

 

Now I want to see one for the Cubs. Damn.

[Jake]

FWIW

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10235/1082040-63.stm

[Tracer Bullet]

i'm not sure exactly what to believe, but that makes a lot of sense. and it's typically dangerous to draw a lot of conclusions from a year or two of financials from an organization (esp one with a long history).

[Jake]

That's just it - what do you believe.

 

Nyer has an interesting take:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4933/parsing-pittsburghs-ps-and-ls

[ConstableRabbit]

I can see the frustration as a fan, especially considering some of the statements from ownership. If I were a Pirates fan, I'd be irate.

 

However, from a business standpoint, if I were to tell you that they made more than the Angels (to the tune of 300% more), who would you say was a better-run organization?

 

Bottom line: they create more value for their investors, and losing hasn't been much of a hindrance to achieving that goal.

 

This is why I'm glad Ricketts has said he's not in this to make profits, but to win. A lot of people who can afford pro teams are probably so filthy rich that they're in it to breakeven and just want the thrill of owning a winning team.

[Tracer Bullet]

That's just it - what do you believe.

 

Nyer has an interesting take:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4933/parsing-pittsburghs-ps-and-ls

 

I do think it was interesting that the original article on espn (that Neyer quotes) didn't say that all those former All-Stars that aren't on the roster, with almost no exception, aren't worth their current salaries. The Pirates still suck, but does anyone think the people they've let go in the last few years have been bad moves? Eventually you have to forgive them for trading Ramirez, etc, right?

[Outshined_One]

Deadspin put up the Rangers' statement today. It's reeeeeeeeeeeeeally detailed, right down to how much the Rangers made on jumbotron birthday announcements.

[ConstableRabbit]

Deadspin put up the Rangers' statement today. It's reeeeeeeeeeeeeally detailed, right down to how much the Rangers made on jumbotron birthday announcements.

Tom Hicks owns a PE firm so I'm not at all surprised!

[KaiserCesar]

I can see the frustration as a fan, especially considering some of the statements from ownership. If I were a Pirates fan, I'd be irate.

 

However, from a business standpoint, if I were to tell you that they made more than the Angels (to the tune of 300% more), who would you say was a better-run organization?

 

Bottom line: they create more value for their investors, and losing hasn't been much of a hindrance to achieving that goal.

 

This is why I'm glad Ricketts has said he's not in this to make profits, but to win. A lot of people who can afford pro teams are probably so filthy rich that they're in it to breakeven and just want the thrill of owning a winning team.

 

I don't think its fair to say that a short-term trend of more profitability means they are going to create more value for their investors in the long-run. With the support from the city and fans drying up and the rather large dividends paid out to owners, one could easily call this 'looting'. The one reassuring part is the investment in player development, but they could be getting to the point where if they ever win, no one will really give enough of a damn to make it all worth it.

[ConstableRabbit]

I can see the frustration as a fan, especially considering some of the statements from ownership. If I were a Pirates fan, I'd be irate.

 

However, from a business standpoint, if I were to tell you that they made more than the Angels (to the tune of 300% more), who would you say was a better-run organization?

 

Bottom line: they create more value for their investors, and losing hasn't been much of a hindrance to achieving that goal.

 

This is why I'm glad Ricketts has said he's not in this to make profits, but to win. A lot of people who can afford pro teams are probably so filthy rich that they're in it to breakeven and just want the thrill of owning a winning team.

 

I don't think its fair to say that a short-term trend of more profitability means they are going to create more value for their investors in the long-run. With the support from the city and fans drying up and the rather large dividends paid out to owners, one could easily call this 'looting'. The one reassuring part is the investment in player development, but they could be getting to the point where if they ever win, no one will really give enough of a damn to make it all worth it.

 

PNC is a nice enough place to sit and watch a game even if the team sucks -- I guess longer-term when the place is outdated you'd run into problems, but otherwise their gate receipts are almost as low as they're going to get, right?

 

They're going to get a bunch of "free" revenue from TV and MLB revenue-sharing regardless. That's part of their disincentive to spend.

[KaiserCesar]

I can see the frustration as a fan, especially considering some of the statements from ownership. If I were a Pirates fan, I'd be irate.

 

However, from a business standpoint, if I were to tell you that they made more than the Angels (to the tune of 300% more), who would you say was a better-run organization?

 

Bottom line: they create more value for their investors, and losing hasn't been much of a hindrance to achieving that goal.

 

This is why I'm glad Ricketts has said he's not in this to make profits, but to win. A lot of people who can afford pro teams are probably so filthy rich that they're in it to breakeven and just want the thrill of owning a winning team.

 

I don't think its fair to say that a short-term trend of more profitability means they are going to create more value for their investors in the long-run. With the support from the city and fans drying up and the rather large dividends paid out to owners, one could easily call this 'looting'. The one reassuring part is the investment in player development, but they could be getting to the point where if they ever win, no one will really give enough of a damn to make it all worth it.

 

PNC is a nice enough place to sit and watch a game even if the team sucks -- I guess longer-term when the place is outdated you'd run into problems, but otherwise their gate receipts are almost as low as they're going to get, right?

 

They're going to get a bunch of "free" revenue from TV and MLB revenue-sharing regardless. That's part of their disincentive to spend.

 

I'm thinking the major risk is the impact on revenue the day they actually get a successful team. While revenue sharing currently creates a floor and almost ensures that you'll be in the black with a bunch of league minimum players, it's probably not the best way to go about maxing out the value of the franchise and assumes no changes in the rules pertaining to payroll.

[Jake]

That's just it - what do you believe.

 

Nyer has an interesting take:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4933/parsing-pittsburghs-ps-and-ls

 

I do think it was interesting that the original article on espn (that Neyer quotes) didn't say that all those former All-Stars that aren't on the roster, with almost no exception, aren't worth their current salaries. The Pirates still suck, but does anyone think the people they've let go in the last few years have been bad moves? Eventually you have to forgive them for trading Ramirez, etc, right?

 

Re the Ramirez trade - the original intent was to trade Benson, who was making about the same money and had worn out his welcome. Supposedly there was a deal in place, but then he got hurt. The Ramirez thing was thrown together rather quickly, and the results speak for themselves.

 

The Nady trade looked very good tonight.

 

This is going to be an interesting off season for us, especially with the words of intent to spend. There's no firm number. If we want to get better, we need to go outside the organization - there's really no one @ AAA ready to come up (Although recently aquired John Bowrker looks like he'll be considered for RF next year.)

 

What we need is pitching. But, then who doesn't. We're not going to get Cliff Lee. I wonder if we can trade for a pitcher near the end of his arbitration clock.

[jersey cubs fan]

What we need is pitching. But, then who doesn't. We're not going to get Cliff Lee. I wonder if we can trade for a pitcher near the end of his arbitration clock.

 

You need to trade for Randy Wells.

[The Logan]

What we need is pitching. But, then who doesn't. We're not going to get Cliff Lee. I wonder if we can trade for a pitcher near the end of his arbitration clock.

 

You need to trade for Randy Wells.

 

Pedro Alvarez should seal the deal on that one