Build all the straw men you like, it isn’t going to change my argument.

“There’s a difference between running out a team that can compete for the division and a team that regularly gets into the playoff with 100 wins. With the economy the way it is and the way the team has been performing the last few years, they’ll be lucky to see 2 million fans in the near future.”

UH? In 2006 they hadn’t won a division in either of the past two years. They had good teams and lost in the final weeks of the year, but they weren’t anything near 100 wins sense 2003. Also, neither you or I has any idea how this recession is going to hit baseball attendance. Baseball has been shown to be relatively recession proof. Also, this recession isn’t going to last forever, and will effect all teams. We’ll likely have recovered sometime in the next 2-3 years, so to assume its going to hurt attendance over the 5 years in question is pretty dubious.

“(The TV and radio deals will) Not (do) enough to change the current situation.”

Neither you or I can determine that for certain. Give it a year, and we’ll know a lot more.

“Beane: ….We were making plans in September as to what our payroll and budget would be but as things continued to get worse, and the fall was the roughest of any time I’ve experienced in my life, we were making adjustments because it was all changing right before our eyes. It did impact us….”

Yes, they have to take the current economic situation into consideration, but so has every team this year except the Yankees. So, the recession is going to effect all the teams, maybe to varying extents, but again, we really won’t know until they start playing games.

“That’s not how a “mid-market” team operates.”

I believe my words where something to the effect of “closer to the middle of the pack.” Stop making straw men, it doesn’t help your argument.

“Pointing out the Billy Beane has to reboot to maintain payroll is very relevant. Particularly, in this case, where we’re talking about how other organizations stack up.”

Yeah, he has to reboot, so do teams in similar financial situations such as the Indians and Twins. However, those two teams graded out much higher in the ownership category. So, like you said talk about how they stack up. Don’t just take a simple quote about Beane not likely to rebuild and think it proves your point. It doesn’t. Lots of teams need to rebuild.

“Seeing as though their situation is similar to the Marlins a D-grade is pretty appropriate.”

You keep saying this, but don’t offer a single piece of evidence to prove it.

“Why do you think they had a fire sale? Just for kicks? If they maintained their payroll last year instead of reducing it they would’ve been in a world of hurt.”

It wasn’t all about payroll, it was also done because they decided they couldn’t win with that core of players, and the farm system was relatively bare.

“Since, the main issue is that you’re implying that Cleveland’s situation is similar to Oakland’s, the interview is a pretty good indication of why they’re not.”

Except the interview doesn’t deal with a comparison to Cleveland in anyway what so ever. It talk about only a small fraction of the ownership traits (low season tickets, needing to rebuild), and doesn’t talk about other revenue streams, meddling, stability, and fails to compare them in any specific way what so ever. Thus the red herring. You’re shifting the discussion to Beane saying he doesn’t like to rebuild and would like more season tickets, away from a comparison of their entire situation to other team’s entire situation.

“And you still can’t comprehend why they have a D-grade. Strange.”

How many team in MLB need to rebuild every 4-6 years, or at least should? Hint: The number is larger than 4.

“You do realize the Marlins are basically doing the same thing, right?”

You keep saying the Marlins are in the same situation as the A’s, but you never actually point to all the similarities and differences.

“They’ve had to cut back payroll because they didn’t have the finances to maintain the product they had on the field.”

….AND they decided that “product” wasn’t going to win.

“What Billy Beane says contradicts your main point about Cleveland not being far ahead of Oakland.”

Beane didn’t say a thing about Cleveland….. or any franchise specifically.

“The A’s model of building teams is pretty similar to the Marlins. That’s not good. ”

You keep saying this as fact, but fail to actually demonstrate it. I would say the A’s model is closer to that of the Indians or Twins than the Marlins.

“At the end of the day, the D-grade for ownership appears to be justified and you haven’t been able to do much to refute that. ”

You keep saying that, but out side unsupported claims that the A’s model is basically the Marlins model, you can’t refute my arguments.

In other words, “That isn’t what I said at all. I said a variation of that which basically means the same thing but I’m trying to pass off as different to keep this thread going.”

“Did you miss the part about 2006 where they fell just 200K behind their 2003 numbers? If they can compete for the division, history shows they will draw around 2 million fans. ”

There’s a difference between running out a team that can compete for the division and a team that regularly gets into the playoff with 100 wins. With the economy the way it is and the way the team has been performing the last few years, they’ll be lucky to see 2 million fans in the near future. Not to mention even with 2 million or so fans Billy Beane has had to maintain teams on a shoestring budget.

“The new TV and radio deals will bring in more money than the old one. We can argue about just how much that will effect the baseball operations, but it will increase revenue.”

Not enough to change the current situation.

Beane: ….We were making plans in September as to what our payroll and budget would be but as things continued to get worse, and the fall was the roughest of any time I’ve experienced in my life, we were making adjustments because it was all changing right before our eyes. It did impact us. Had things been normal, we might have had even more flexibility. Fortunately we were in a better position because we had reduced the payroll significantly the year before. Had we not, it would have been a pretty tough situation for us. If we had just continuing with the previous roster with the payroll what it was we would’ve been over and the budget would’ve been far, far beyond the resources of what we had to pay.

That’s not how a “mid-market” team operates.

“This is the part where you get lost in a red herring. Beane is talking about needing to rebuild on occasion, I acknowledged that. It is possible that Beane can talk about not liking having to rebuild every 4-6 years and someone else can exaggerate their financial situation. Did you notice the 2007 revenues I posted? It is by no means great, and is around 20th in MLB, but that was in a losing year, and there is more to ownership that grades out in the A’s favor (a hands off owner that wants to win). So you can parade around my “It’s not that bad!” quote all you’d like, but intelligent individuals will know that’s a relative term. If I said that relative to an above average grade, it would be ridiculous, but I said it compared to a bottom 4 grade.”

A red herring refers to an irrelevant topic. Pointing out the Billy Beane has to reboot to maintain payroll is very relevant. Particularly, in this case, where we’re talking about how other organizations stack up. Seeing as though their situation is similar to the Marlins a D-grade is pretty appropriate.

I know using logic fallacies is trendy these days but at least try to learn how to use them properly.

“Sense Wolff arrived the pay roll has increase every year until last year, when they held a bit of a fire sale.”

Why do you think they had a fire sale? Just for kicks? If they maintained their payroll last year instead of reducing it they would’ve been in a world of hurt.

“Right, posters backed into a corner generally do say such imbecilic things as “Do yourself a favor and read the interview.” That was your argument, the interview.”

That’s my supporting evidence actually. Since, the main issue is that you’re implying that Cleveland’s situation is similar to Oakland’s, the interview is a pretty good indication of why they’re not.

“Which brought up basically two things. Needing to rebuild every 4-6 years and the low sales of season tickets.”

And you still can’t comprehend why they have a D-grade. Strange.

You do realize the Marlins are basically doing the same thing, right?

“I don’t see how anything Beane said conflicts with what I have been saying. Yes, the A’s will need to rebuild on occasion and they don’t have a lot of season ticket holders. We got that. My points have been the A’s payroll is not limited to something around $48 million/year as it was in 2008, in reality the upper limit is in the 70-80 range.”

They’ve had to cut back payroll because they didn’t have the finances to maintain the product they had on the field. What Billy Beane says contradicts your main point about Cleveland not being far ahead of Oakland.

“The A’s revenue streams are improving with the new TV and radio deals. Wolff cares about winning, is actively trying to improve the financial footing of the Oakland A’s and doesn’t meddle. He even went so far as to make Beane a partial owner of the club. All that doesn’t grade out to be one of the 4 worst clubs in MLB so far as ownership is concerned.”

The A’s model of building teams is pretty similar to the Marlins. That’s not good. They can still build a competitive team but they have very little room for error. When the competition has the finances to maintain competitive teams that’s an issue.

At the end of the day, the D-grade for ownership appears to be justified and you haven’t been able to do much to refute that. Unless you have something new to add, there’s really no point in continuing this.

“Nacho starts off with Cleveland’s ownership is just like Oakland’s ownership….Nacho says they’re EXACTLY the same but we’ll give him a pass here.”

That isn’t what I said at all. I said, “you could have said pretty much the exact same thing you said about the Indians’ ownership about the A’s ownership.” That refers only to what was said about the Indians ownership above, not to the entirety of the ownership. And I didn’t say “they’re EXACTLY the same,” I said “pretty much exact” about those specific things.

“then theorizes that he doesn’t see any reason why they couldn’t draw a significant amount of fans if they put a winning team back on the field. Never mind that this was during a time when the A’s were fielding 100-win playoff teams.”

Did you miss the part about 2006 where they fell just 200K behind their 2003 numbers? If they can compete for the division, history shows they will draw around 2 million fans.

“Well, Nacho is more optimistic than Beane himself I suppose as he notes that his current situation will still have him detonating teams (unlike the Cleveland Indians) as long as they stay in their current stadium.”

The new TV and radio deals will bring in more money than the old one. We can argue about just how much that will effect the baseball operations, but it will increase revenue.

“If you’re more optimistic than Beane is about the A’s situation (”It’s not that bad!”) then you’re providing a rosy outlook. It’s that simple.”

This is the part where you get lost in a red herring. Beane is talking about needing to rebuild on occasion, I acknowledged that. It is possible that Beane can talk about not liking having to rebuild every 4-6 years and someone else can exaggerate their financial situation. Did you notice the 2007 revenues I posted? It is by no means great, and is around 20th in MLB, but that was in a losing year, and there is more to ownership that grades out in the A’s favor (a hands off owner that wants to win). So you can parade around my “It’s not that bad!” quote all you’d like, but intelligent individuals will know that’s a relative term. If I said that relative to an above average grade, it would be ridiculous, but I said it compared to a bottom 4 grade.

“They’ve only gone passed $60 Million payroll once this DECADE.”

That’s just not correct. Over the last three years they have averaged 68mil/year. Sense Wolff arrived the pay roll has increase every year until last year, when they held a bit of a fire sale.

“Posters backed into a corner generally resort to this tactic.”

Right, posters backed into a corner generally do say such imbecilic things as “Do yourself a favor and read the interview.” That was your argument, the interview. Which brought up basically two things. Needing to rebuild every 4-6 years and the low sales of season tickets.

Finally lets deal with this once again: “Once again, I refer back to Billy Beane. Again, if you’re more optimistic about the situation than Beane is then you’re probably painting a rosy picture.”

I don’t see how anything Beane said conflicts with what I have been saying. Yes, the A’s will need to rebuild on occasion and they don’t have a lot of season ticket holders. We got that. My points have been the A’s payroll is not limited to something around $48 million/year as it was in 2008, in reality the upper limit is in the 70-80 range. The A’s revenue streams are improving with the new TV and radio deals. Wolff cares about winning, is actively trying to improve the financial footing of the Oakland A’s and doesn’t meddle. He even went so far as to make Beane a partial owner of the club. All that doesn’t grade out to be one of the 4 worst clubs in MLB so far as ownership is concerned. Now, if you think that’s “rosy,” fine that’s your opinion (a poorly supported one). However, you don’t have a single shred of evidence that all this means I’m more optimistic about the situation than Beane. Maybe we should ask Beane if he thinks the A’s ownership and financial situation is one of the 4 worst in MLB?

A’s fans don’t come even when they do win.

- Nacho starts off with Cleveland’s ownership is just like Oakland’s ownership. As he says “but you could have said pretty much the exact same thing you said about the Indians’ ownership about the A’s ownership….. ” and “Change Dolan to Wolff and 2008 to 2006.” So already Nacho makes the claim that despite different grades they are pretty much the same. Well, Nacho says they’re EXACTLY the same but we’ll give him a pass here.

- Gina politely points out the difference citing that the Indians have a larger revenue stream or at least one that has more upside in the immediate future.

- Nacho then “sees those issues” and then brushes them aside by saying that they’re being “greatly exaggerated” and then cites attendance records from 2003 (the highest they had in the last decade) and then theorizes that he doesn’t see any reason why they couldn’t draw a significant amount of fans if they put a winning team back on the field. Never mind that this was during a time when the A’s were fielding 100-win playoff teams. In addition, he cites the new TV deal as an extra revenue stream for the A’s. Well, Nacho is more optimistic than Beane himself I suppose as he notes that his current situation will still have him detonating teams (unlike the Cleveland Indians) as long as they stay in their current stadium.

- And that’s where I come in. I provided an excerpt of Billy Beane’s insight into the current situation. If you’re more optimistic than Beane is about the A’s situation (“It’s not that bad!”) then you’re providing a rosy outlook. It’s that simple.

- So now comes Nacho pulling stuff out of thin air. “so a team limited to about 70-80 million a year has to rebuild every 4-6 years”…70-80 million a year? They’ve only gone passed $60 Million payroll once this DECADE. With no evidence that they can maintain this kind of payroll no one can help but paint this picture as rosy. And yes, $80 Million is middle of the pack. Not seeing any evidence that this is where the A’s are and given Beane grim outlook if they stay in the same stadium, even if they did have that money where is it going?

- Once again, I refer back to Billy Beane. Again, if you’re more optimistic about the situation than Beane is then you’re probably painting a rosy picture. Going back to the line “We have a low season ticket base. We’re one of the lowest if not the lowest in the league.” To the guy that’s actually WORKING with the payroll that’s kinda important.

- Then we start heading to F-Wad territory with Nacho assembling a straw-man of “the point” by isolating a single line in my post and calling it “my argument”. “Wow, that’s your argument? I didn’t read it? ” Posters backed into a corner generally resort to this tactic.

In case anyone forgot, the overall point is that Cleveland’s ownership and Oakland’s ownership are not in the same predicament.

- Nacho sort of goes off on a tangent after this. And really, this is the sort of thing that caused everyone to gang up on him (as Wally) in the first place.