"I completely rule out the idea that the Pirates have given it a good try. They have not."

Well, the PIRATES have given it a good try, don't you think? Ownership are the ones that seem to be not trying very hard for some reason.

"McClatchey is getting criticized for running his business from a professional.. standpoint in an inept manner."

You know, the KM lovers argue that the Pirates are the smallest market team in MLB. To be successful in a small market area, you have to have high productivity for the dollars you spend. He has, in fact, done that.

1998 - 2003 average yearly player salary as the basis:

-------------------5yr----5yr----ave cost----ave cost
Team-------------W's----rs-----per win------per rs
Montreal.............369...3568..$3,166.11...$1,637.19
Pittsburgh...........356...3619..$3,370.45...$1,657.75
Oakland..............479...4292..$3,215.24...$1,794.15
Florida................389...3614..$3,342.16...$1,798.70
Royals................351...4037..$4,158.36...$1,807.76
Minnesota...........401...3774..$3,437.11...$1,826.02
Tampa.................318...3565..$4,362.44...$1,945.66
Milwaukee...........339...3636..$4,226.93...$1,970.48
Cincinnati............394...3828...$3,962.38...$2,039.16
WhiteSox............420...4200...$4,691.61...$2,345.80
Detroit.................312...3460...$5,447.06...$2,455.90

As you see above, from a business standpoint, the Pirate organization was second best at cost per run scored and fourth best in cost per win. That signals high productivity. To show that productivity better, the chart below shows the Pirates 6th from the bottom of MLB in ave runs scored per year even though they were second to last in cost per rs (and only 3 runs from being 10th).

ave rs
Team per year 1998 - 2003
Detroit 692
Tampa 713
Montreal 714
Padres 718
Florida 723
Pittsburgh 724
Mets 727
Milwaukee 727
Dodgers 727
Cubs 744

So, from a business perspective, KM is doing all he can to maximize the productivity he receives for the player salary dollars he spends. That part is hardly inept.

The players are producing more than expected for the dollars they are receiving based on MLB averages and productivity.

So, where are we failing? Lack of quality players, just like DL said. That would require another $20 - $30M in player salaries. So, let's see..

If we kept everything as it is now (but added $20 - $30M in quality players), and attendance jumped from 1.6M to 2.5M because we were contending, and the average ticket price for a seat sold was $20 (I am guessing here at the average), that would produce another $18M in revenue alone. Think of associated sales from those extra ticket buyers, extra advertising revenue because you are contending, blah, blah, blah, it seems reasonable that an extra $20 - $30M should be covered by the tickets sold.

BUT, you have to take a chance in life if you ever want to succeed. THAT is why Smizik called for KM to get out of dodge.. he refuses to take the chance.

It is my opinion that, either the ownership group refuses to take a risk or they don't believe taking a risk would be good money spent. That is why I believe this ownership group is failing the organization.

But, wait.. is it even possible that the ownership group wants to take it on the nose this year knowing they don't have the players ready from the farm, maximize their profits by playing the 'we're rebuilding again' game since all the other MLC teams have reloaded spending big dollars, and then come rolling out in 2005 to take that risk? It would at least be a good excuse for this year.. huh?

---

Edited 1/5/2004 8:54:56 AM ET by sunnfun

I didn't see any reference to a specific $15M loss - out clause. If you know more about it let us in on it. My specific question would be: are you saying that if the team loses $15M/year for 3 consecutive years, then the team can opt out? If that is the case then maybe we should be applauding McClatchey for taking steps to insure that we don't lose another $15M this year. This is probably just hoey but I would be curious to see any actual, factual information on the subject.

I deleted the message because the clause was based prior to the PNC deal.. it allowed KM to move/sell the team if he had $15M in losses and a new stadium wasn't being built.

http://www.cslintl.com/pspirates.htm

I know Smizik likes to harp on the fact Ramirez was signed in 2002, and then there wasn't money for him in 2003, but perhaps that was because the same company that writes his paychecks pulled out of the ownership group last year? Or are we supposed to believe that losing an investor shouldn't have any effect on the budget?

That's what the Pirates did last year - raised payroll, signed a few good players to high value contracts, and it didn't work. The team didn't increase their productivity, attendance dropped, so the salary was dumped to stop the bleeding. Just think of what this team could have done if Stairs, Giles, Ramirez, Loften, and Sanders had all hit well at the same time, instead of taking turns.

I realize you did a lot of work here, but the idea of wins for dollars spent is not a real stat. It's something devised by small market teams to make it seem like they are doing a good job when they are not. It is almost mathematically impossible for teams with lower payrolls not to lead this list. Let's make that perfectly clear: It is almost mathematically impossible.

If the Pirates carried a 60-122 record with a $50 million payroll, teams with a $100 million payroll would have to win 120 games just to tie. The Yankees would have to win roughly 235 games in a 162-game schedule to tie. If you cut back to a $20 million payroll and were a disgrace at 30-132, teams simply at $80 million would have to go 120-42 to tie. The Yankees would have to win about 290 games to tie.

The stats you listed are not credible.

---

Edited 1/5/2004 2:01:39 PM ET by kison25

"The stats you listed are not credible"

geezz.. cut me some slack.. there are very credible as it covers a 5-year period which includes a period when the team lost 100 games.. but that is totally irrelevant..

What is relevant is this: the figures I quotes for average player salary per year for the last 5-years, is from the AP report of December 2003. That is a fact.

The wins are a fact.

The runs scored are a fact.

The cost per runs scored and cost per win are facts. There is nothing to debate.. they are highly credible.

All that mumbo-jumbo about the Yankees and stuff is garbage and totally irrelevant to the stats I posted. I put up FACTUAL stats.. they are what they are.. you don't have to guess whether they are credible or not - the facts speak for themself.

Think of it this way, I reported the actual cost per team (of the teams I posted) for every run they scored and every win they had over the last 5 years AS AN AVERAGE AGAINST THE AVERAGE 5-YEAR PLAYER SALARY.

Take it for what it is worth. The stats are perfect.

"..perhaps that was because the same company that writes his paychecks pulled out of the ownership group last year?"

valid point.. I dunno.. but I doubt highly their $2M was that much of a big deal. Besides, someone bought them out with cash so that cash must have been around anyways.

Remember, the payroll slashing didn't just start with KM - it has been going on since he has been here. Leyland complained like heck when KM did it after 1996. Lamont complained too.. this isn't new except for the level of dumping..

I didn't say they weren't accurate, I said they weren't credible. Perhaps I should have said they don't prove anything. While you might make a strong argument that it is highly likely the Pirates can win under the current economic system, it is flat out impossible for a high payroll team to lead the list you posted.

Under the current system, it's over a billion times more likely for the Pirates to win 20 straight World Series than it is for a team like the Yankees to lead a stat like wins for dollars spent. You know, make that a trillion. A trillion trillion. It doesn't matter.

I don't want to start anything with you. I know those are real stats thrown out there by small market teams. I don't like them because they are a built-in excuse for failure. The Pirates have had 11 straight losing seasons. It really isn't the time for a spin campaign to suggest those years were a success.

"it is flat out impossible for a high payroll team to lead the list you posted. "

that is correct.. that was the whole idea of the stats.. it goes to show the value received in runs scored and wins compared to the average player salary.. that is all..

Look at it another way, if you have three teams A B and C and B's average player salary is the median, but they score the fewest runs, then the cost per run scored would be generally higher than A or C.

What my stats showed is that was not necessarily the case in MLB. The Pirates, for instance, scored more runs than the Padres in that 5-year period, but the Padres cost per win was almost twice the Pirates (Padres had only three more W's in the 5-year period).

On the other hand, Florida had 33 more wins that Pittsburgh but 5 less runs scored. But, the Marlins cost per rs was much higher.

Thus, these stats tend to show the amount of productivity your players provide the team for the dollars spent. It isn't perfect, but all teams were measured equally so the result is pretty balanced. KM has received one of the highest productivity levels from his players than almost every other teams (percentage wise). Not only is that a credit to LM (and probably the reason he remains the manager) but also to smart thinking by KM - financially.

However, while KM's financial wisdom may indeed provide strong stability for the owners (which is a good thing for any club), it also tends to show we are underspending by almost 1/3...

IF we received the same productivity from the players as averaged over the last 5 years but spent 1/3 more for new players who contribute the same average productivity, this team would score about 800 runs per year and win 100+ games. That would take salary to the Oakland franchise average over the last 5 years ($1,600,000 per player average vs the $1,200,000 or about $16M more than 2003).

For once, it would be refreshing to read what Bob Smizik believes, rather than what he thinks "Pirate fans" believe. Bob Smizik does not speak for me, and he does not know what I want.

For one, his ability to state a case is both boring and lacking logical support. Consequently, his columns tend to be intellectually pathetic.

Take his most recent column as an example. He wishes to make a case that the owner should sell the team. His premise is that the fan is unable to expect that the Pirates will sign or retain star players.

Gee, what a novel thought. That warrants a gold star. Not. Few would argue if a deep-pocketed benefactor wanted to lavish money on building a team here. Unfortunately, Mr. Smizik fails to confront reality, which is, not long ago one of these hypothetical moneybags could have waltzed into town and done just that. Guess what - no one came to the ball. So what has changed? Smizik doesn't explain. That would actually be challenging. Weak.

Worse, his argument in favor of dumping the owner amounts to a list of decisions made by the General Manager - NOT the owner. McClatchy may be responsible for hiring bad General Managers - but Smizik doesn't make that argument. Instead, he wants to charge McClatcy with responsibility for making bad baseball decisions -- and he fails to argue that like Steinbrenner -- McClatchy is meddling in baseball matters. Terrible. F.

My dream is not to sign a big-name free agent. It takes more than that to build a winning club. Not that Bob Smizik would know anything about that. He is content to sit behind his desk and write meaningless columns on behalf of "the fans."

Terrible. F.

I think he went under the premise that McClatchey ordered some of those trades. Based on the minimal return and the fact McClatchey came out in public at the same time to announce huge losses, I think that was a fair premise for Smizik to take.

Beyond that, I don't feel the need to defend Smizik. I'm not a big fan of his.

You are right to claim that a simple (salary) cost/win ratio is misleading and one cannot rationally use this data in an argument defending McClatchy. To unpack these claims, one may wish to consider the fact that, if one graphs the relationship between costs/wins while holding wins constant, the resulting graph shows a linear relationship between the two variables, with the line sharply sloping upwards as costs increase. This is not a trend line but a geometrically straight line formed from the actual data points generated by the ratio. If, on the other hand, one holds costs constant while varying wins, the line gently curves downward as the number of wins increase.

Now, it’s true by definition that a prudent organization will attempt to maximize its winning percentage while minimizing its costs/win. However, it is worth keeping in mind that, for a professional baseball team, winning percentage POSITIVELY CORRELATES to wage costs. Accordingly, teams that win in the present either will pay for those wins in the present (by paying current salaries) or will pay for them future (possible salary increases based on successful past performance). Naturally, a prudent organization will also recognize this fact and its consequences. Therefore, for a team wishing to maximize its winning percentage (i.e. to win championships) but who also wishes to stay within its budget constraints (i.e. any team that lacks an infinite amount of money to spend), that team will need to consider making trade offs. That is, it will need to make trade offs between its wage bill and spending money to win games in the present term and, perhaps, in the future term as well. The important point to keep in mind is that a team’s costs/wins ratio must be assessed with respect to the number of wins the team produces, to the fact that spending MORE MONEY tends to produce more wins and to the fact that it has budget constraints it must manage. The simple cost/wins relationship won’t do this job.

Of course, I, as a fan, lack a rational interest in whether McClatchy gets the greatest bang for his baseball buck. On the other hand, I certainly have a rational interest in getting the greatest bang for my baseball buck (i.e. the time and money I spend being a fan of the Pirates). As a Pirate fan, I want the team to maximize their winning percentage and to seek championships, not to have McClatchy earn an award for being the cheapskate executive of the year in baseball. As a Pirate fan, I want McClatchy to run an organization which wins games — indeed, which wins championships.

Steve

---

Edited 1/5/2004 6:27:22 PM ET by Stephen Zielinski

Thank you - that was what I was trying to explain to him.. it was just some random facts.. I personally liked the facts that tended to show the players are producing more than average for their money - we have seen it like at the end of the season last year, but it was still nice to see with data.

As for defending KM, I am hardly the one to do that - I think you know that. I have called for his head for almost 18 months now..

I am like you - I care less what KM gets for his $$ unless it equates to wins..

How about this: If someone wants to make a win/dollar spent argument -- and I'm not sure why anyone would -- you have to play at least .500 ball and spend at a certain threshold. Otherwise it's just a stat to show which teams spent the least amount of money.

That's pretty much my last comment on this topic because I just don't see the significance of it at all.

The significance of the cost/wins analysis for a small market team issues from a simple fact, namely: This kind of analysis demonstrates that small market teams must make their dollars count and whether they do so or not. Naturally, small market teams must carefully use their financial resources because they can’t successfully spend their way to the playoffs and world championships. So, for the Pirates — along with the Reds, Indians, Brewers, Royals, etc. — achieving a high winning percentage while spending less per win isn’t a just lofty goal, it’s a necessity.

Of course, rational analysis shows McClatchy to be an utter failure as a managing partner precisely because his tenure has yet to produce even a single seasonal winning record. Moreover, a championship seems as far away today as it did the day after Barry Bonds blew his throw home or Leyland left for better things. Worse, McClatchy continues to plead poverty in order to provide coverage for his obvious incompetence. He adds to his poor mouthing by blaming others for his failures. In the end, it remains the case that his ‘excellent’ win/cost ratio only proves his stinginess, not his success as a team owner and managing partner.

Steve

---

Edited 1/5/2004 9:42:10 PM ET by Stephen Zielinski

I know I said I was done, but I just want to make sure everyone knows everyone's arguments here. I hate this system because it starts from 0 wins and a team can cheat and go down to minimum wage. Those two factors render the system meaningless. Now let's say you only counted wins over 70 or 75. Let's also say that any team that dips under $45 million will also be counted at that number. Now you have a system that might tell you something. Before all that was revealed was an elabrate system that said nothing other than which teams were or weren't spending money.

Okay, now I made myself as clear as I possibly can. If everyone agrees or disagrees . . . oh well.

If the truth be told - the Penguins "piratized" themselves, they had a good run until Mario took over ownership and paid himself twice, had to get rid of Jagr, Kovalev, etc.....

KM still needs to go..