On the Marlins

A long under-publicized story finally got some coverage today, when Major League Baseball and its player union ripped the Florida Marlins for "not using enough revenue-sharing money to increase players' salaries."

What does that mean? Basically, Bud Selig and Michael Weiner are finally telling owners like Jeffrey Loria to, you know, spend the money given to them by the other teams as part of the CBA.

On a frequent basis, owners just pocket the revenue-sharing coin. You must realize, not every owner is Hal Steinbrenner; winning isn't the end-all-be-all for Loria. The Marlins are his business, and in a business the goal is turning a profit. If the Marlins turn a profit--and trust me, they do, owning a baseball team is roughly equivalent to owning a mint--then Loria has won.

Is that unfair? Well, how do you think it would feel to support (and spend money on) a team who's goal wasn't winning ballgames? I'm sure that, GM Larry Beinfest, manager Fredi Gonzalez and the players all want to win, but the owner doesn't.

I don't like to be like this, but I despise owners like Jeff Loria, Bob Nutting and any other that looks at a baseball team like a business. I know, it is a business. But, given the structure of things, no team is going to fail financially. The frickin' revenues are shared, for goodness sake. Everyone, regardless of anything, get a cut.

That's bull crap. Why in the world should Loria and Nutting receive the same revenue that Steinbrenner, John Henry or Jerry Reinsdorf get? Loria, in particular, has basically screamed from the rooftops that winning isn't important, making money is. I hate to break the news, but winning tends to bring fans to the park (or to the TV) and fans at the park spend money (and advertisements air on TVs). You want to make a lot of money? Win games.

But, Loria doesn't care.

I know that's his right. It's his team. But, if I were a fan of the club, how could I support the Marlins? Few teams have produced as much talent with such a low payroll. The Marlins clearly have a knack for developing high-impact players. Too bad they can't ever keep one of them into their peak years (other than Hanley, keep reading).

The goal of the Marlins is to make money. They could spend more money on payroll, but that'd potentially cut into profits--if the team doesn't make the postseason--and that's a risk, and millionaires can often become millionaires by taking risks, but remaining a millionaire can mean not taking risks anymore, because hell, I'm already a millionaire.

Now, I've ripped them left and right for not spending, but it'd be unfair to ignore Hanley Ramirez's 6-year, $70 million contract signed in late 2008. That's a step in the right direction. It's both smart and affordable, two equally desirable traits for the Marlins who can't spend $100 million on payroll, but might be able to spend $55 million. Hanley's, uh, worth some of that. Of course, the Marlins made sure the deal did not come with a no-trade, so Ramirez is trade able. We can all imagine a scenario where Loria wants payroll cut, leading to a Ramirez deal.

The idea of the linked article concerns whether the Marlins will spend once the citizens of Miami fund and construct the Marlins ballpark. I doubt it. But maybe they will.

I honestly don't see why Loria, having received a ballpark either for free or for less than what it costs at Home Depot, will then want to spend money on his team. Miami just proved they don't care if the Marlins win.

Why will Loria?

Adam apologies for the rambling nature of this post--hey, it's 12:24 am!--but would love some reaction at adamdadkins@gmail.com.