The Marlins Are a Well-Run Company

It’s true, probably. If you remove emotion from the equation, the Marlins of the past two decades have been a successful corporation. Even under the newest ownership, they’ve satisfied all of the requirements you might put on a great franchise. Your appraisal of their work to date, and even their trade this week, includes emotion, but an honest eye towards the bottom line can put a different spin on all of it.

What could you ask of your team? A championship. Winning seasons. Profitability. Fulfilling ballpark experiences. Strong decision making. Clear eyes when it comes to competitiveness and a strong heart when it comes to making bold moves. The ability to sign big free agents when it makes sense, and the knowledge to know when it doesn’t make sense to do so. We’re getting vaguer by the statement, but so far so good for the Marlins.

This expansion team has won championships under two owners, including Jeffrey Loria. They won the series four years after they were created. They won it all six years later. The San Diego Padres were born a quarter-century before the Marlins and have never World Series. Ditto the Milwaukee Brewers. It’s unseemly to point to TEH RINGZ, but they are the ultimate goal of every franchise, and the Marlins have satisfied the requirement.

Teams are companies, and they should have an eye out for making money. There was general uproar when Deadspin revealed that the Marlins had been making money for years despite pleading poverty and taking in revenue sharing money, but anyone financially associated with the team should probably have been happy with leadership for working the system that way. Perhaps anger directed at leadership — tasked with making money — should be directed at the system instead.

Maybe they could have used more of their profits when it came to the stadium. Their involvement in the financing of Marlins Park was a baseball-low 30%. It certainly wasn’t as civic-friendly as the deal in San Francisco, which was privately financed. But again, isn’t anger at the front office misplaced? The decision to publicly finance a stadium was made by publicly-elected officials — to some extent, it reflected the will of the people. Did the taxpayers have a false decision between two groups that each would have bowed to the Marlins’ will? Sounds like a failing of the political system. Were the pols duped by Loria? They should have known that new stadiums don’t bring jobs. It certainly isn’t a bad business move to take advantage of a willing population, even if it is Gordan-Gecko-like.

The Marlins needed a new park. Their front office decided they couldn’t or wouldn’t build a new park with only private funding. The end result was still a new, mostly beautiful park for Marlins fans.

Evident so far is a clear-eyed, goal-oriented approach, optics be damned. The Marlins wanted rings, profits, and a new ballpark and didn’t care about how it looked. That sort of mindset filtered all the way through to the baseball decisions in a way that, well, in a way that was very saber-seeming.

One of the main tenets of the statistical approach to baseball is honesty. Numbers can help see past any mystical optimism into the stark reality of a team’s competitiveness. How much the Marlins actually depended on statistical forecasts in their decision-making is debatable, but one thing is clear: they knew when they had a shot at winning, and they knew when they didn’t.

There are plenty of ways to spin their approach more negatively. Pump and dump. Boom and bust. Fun, then fire sale.

But if your team is not going to be competitive, why keep high-priced assets around? The Astros traded away Ben Francisco, Steve Pearce, Carlos Lee, Brandon Lyon, J.A. Happ, Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez and Chris Johnson this season, there was no uproar. Houston wasn’t going to win, and so they sold their older, more expensive pieces for future pieces. Nobody blinked. Totally reasonable. The Marlins showed last year that they were more than a piece or two short of competing in a suddenly loaded National League East. So they sold their parts. Do the same thing a couple times, and you’re a villain, it seems. But why spend on mid-tier free agents just to go through the motions? It didn’t do Omar Minaya’s Mets any good to stay with the pack and cling to competitiveness with bad deals. Would you rather be a Mets fan? There’s a highly-leveraged team hemorrhaging money that hasn’t won a championship in over a quarter-century, and has muddled it’s way through middling seasons without bold rebuilding periods.

Public relations is a huge part of this picture, on the other hand. Each of these aspects of the Marlins’ past work has upset the public even as they achieved profits, rings, and wins for the franchise. Upsetting the public affects brand loyalty. Fans may identify the ‘bust’ parts of the cycle just as quickly as the team’s front office, and stay away until they sense a boom. Future free agents may be wary of signing with the team for fear of being shipped out the minute the team hits a rough patch. This bold, fearless approach to running the Marlins has not won friends, or the loyalty that travels with them. The downside is obvious.

Winning is the only reliable way to put butts in seats. Zeroes before the decimal get contracts signed. Rings can build a loyalty of their own. This approach may seem heartless and conniving — it may even BE heartless and conniving — but the results have been remarkable. This vehemence pointed towards the Marlins’ leadership has come before, and it was mostly ignored for a year during the exuberance of a new stadium and shiny new free agents. Excitement may come again under the right circumstances.

If excitement will come for a new ownership group — Dave Cameron seemed to suggest a sale is the best future for the Marlins’ ownership after these moves — then they did an even better job. Even if selling the team has some pitfalls — most notably a profit-sharing plan that would take much of the money out of the sale out of Loria’s pockets — the team’s long-term health outlook just got rosier.

Think about acquiring the Marlins now, with a man-child Giancarlo Stanton in the middle, flanked by a young roster. If the team can find a buyer for Ricky Nolasco, there won’t be a player on the team with more than a $5 million salary. The overall payroll will sit under $20 million without their highest-paid pitcher, and it will have a chance to go down in the future. The Marlins will have a history of making profits and will take in revenue sharing money. In a new stadium.

That seems like a well-run enterprise and an attractive corporation to acquire.



Print This Post



Graphs: Baseball, Roto, Beer, brats (OK, no graphs for that...yet), repeat. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
MrKnowNothing
Guest
MrKnowNothing
3 years 10 months ago

The firesale isn’t itself bad; it’s the fact that it happened after a year. Sure, they may be pragmatic and honest with themselves, but what kind of process is it that after a year they say, “OK. We suck. Time to start over.”

If you’re willing to scrap everything after a year, that tells me that the initial decision wasn’t a good one – but the Marlins are still employing those same decision makers. Why should anyone believe their next plan will pan out?

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 years 10 months ago

I really think you can say the exact same thing about the much-lauded Red Sox in the recent Adrian Gonzalez deal.

one
Guest
one
3 years 10 months ago

They didn’t even give it a year. Only til July!

Jaack
Guest
Jaack
3 years 10 months ago

There are a lot of words to describe the Marlins’ new park. Beautiful is about the last word I’d touch, right next to traditional and xylophone.

Kevin B
Guest
Kevin B
3 years 10 months ago

I disagree. I think that the park looks perfectly xylophone.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 years 10 months ago

Yeah no kidding, that thing is nauseating to look at.

On the other hand, you’d think Stanton would be right at home, being as it looks like a huge McDonald’s playpen.

Tim
Guest
Tim
3 years 10 months ago

The Marlins wanted… a new ballpark and didn’t care about how it looked.

That’s for sure.

Caught you!
Guest
Caught you!
3 years 10 months ago

Good try, Marlins PR department.

Kyle H
Member
Kyle H
3 years 10 months ago

Bain Capital is probably a decently run company too. Still, fuck them

Sparkles Peterson
Guest
Sparkles Peterson
3 years 10 months ago

Pissing off your customers is bad business. The Marlins’ “customers” have primarily been other MLB franchises, which contributed two thirds of Florida’s revenue streams under programs intended to maintain competitive balance by enabling teams like the Marlins to sign veteran players. You have to believe that Loria and company have jeopardized these revenue streams with their fraudulent practices just as much as they jeopardized the third that was coming from the local community they just screwed.

odditie
Member
odditie
3 years 10 months ago

When you go to this level it makes it difficult to not only sign big free agents now but even notable free agents or a guy like Stanton who in his own words is pissed.

Padres Fan
Guest
Padres Fan
3 years 10 months ago

FYI, the citizens of San Diego funded 70% of PETCO Park, too.

wobatus
Guest
wobatus
3 years 10 months ago

I like this take, Eno. One quibble. It apparently wasn’t the will of the people to pay for the lion’s share of the stadium. Supported by the mayor and voted for by the County Commission. They voted out that mayor and voted in one of the County Commissioners who opposed it. And a lawsuit to prevent the deal was tossed out by a judge. So the people did speak, but only got to really voice their displeasure at the polls after-the-fact.

Also, MLB joined in the threat that there’d be no baseball in Miami absent that stadium deal.

But I agree with the overall tenor of your piece.

Chris Hannum
Guest
3 years 10 months ago

This is like arguing that Anheuser-Busch InBev is a well-run company since it’s profits are rising despite hemorrhaging dissatisfied customers. Declining sales and increasing margins cannot indefinitely boost profits.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

Amberv was losing market share to craft (better) beers and hard liquor. That’s why they’ve come out with their margarit thing, the craft beer they have I thinkits ofallon, and the bud light platinum with the higher alcohol content.

tz
Guest
tz
3 years 10 months ago

Food for thought:

What difference would it be if:

a) Loria sells the Marlins for $500 million, based in part on the value of G. Stanton at this point in his career, or

b) Loria sells G. Stanton to another team for $50 million, and later sells the Marlins for $450 million.

Even though b) seems like a blatant money grab from Loria, does he gain anything on that vs. option a)?

Mike P
Guest
Mike P
3 years 10 months ago

If the goal was just to make money then yes Loria has done a good job. The 2001-2005 Tigers made money too. Terrible, but profitable.

The issue is that everyone else other than the owner(s), his bankers, and possibly the team president consider the main goal to be the acquisition of another of those rings.

As an owner, I would think, if you want to win the best you can hope for is to break even. Your other businesses can make you rich and you’ll be fine as long as the team pays it’s way.

Really if baseball was truly concerned they would change the rule to say that the revenue sharing must be spent on the team and not go into the owners pockets as profit. The Luria would have no choice but to have a good team in order to get his profit.

If I lived in Miami I would not support the team as long as Loria owned it. But as we have seen supporting any team lines his pockets.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

How do you prove that? I thinks cap and minimum would be the easiest way.

Gary Bettman
Guest
Gary Bettman
3 years 10 months ago

Yeah, that approach works really well.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

The nfl is the most successful league. It’s not about true parity, it’s perceived. In the nfl, more fans perceive that they have a chance. Cap and minimum with other regulations, yes.

Mike
Guest
Mike
3 years 10 months ago

I agree with this. While it makes sense from a business standpoint, I feel like you shouldn’t be in baseball just to treat it like a business. Make your money from other businesses; the goal of a baseball team should be to win. If you’re only in it for the money, get out of the sport.

Mitt Romney
Guest
Mitt Romney
3 years 10 months ago

#1 Marlins fan

henry
Guest
henry
3 years 10 months ago

FREEEE TRAAAAAADDDDEEEEEE

Springsteen
Guest
Springsteen
3 years 10 months ago

THIS TRRAAAAAAAAAADDEEE!

Kinanik
Guest
Kinanik
3 years 10 months ago

The goal of the commissioner’s office should be to make it so that being a well-run business and being a well-run baseball team are the same thing. If being run well requires that the owner essentially be a really rich fan, baseball will increasingly become victim of Loria-McCourt type regimes. Is this a new phenomenon, or something that has been developing over the past decade or two? I know early in baseball there were all sorts of business problems, e.g., Cleveland Spiders, but I don’t know that since then there has been a period where good business=bad baseball. What changed?

Tim
Guest
Tim
3 years 10 months ago

Kansas City Athletics?

JT
Guest
JT
3 years 10 months ago

Brilliance and evil can come in the same package. Some people say “how brilliant!” and others say “how evil!”. We know which camp this article falls into.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
3 years 10 months ago

This article is a straw man. The beef with the fish is that they are douche bags, bad for baseball, and unworthy of fan support. Nothing you wrote combats those gripes.

masonzippo
Guest
masonzippo
3 years 10 months ago

Putting aside the business argument, is there an argument that this deal actually makes sense for the Marlins? I get the schizophrenia argument. But they gave up two guys with a year left under contract (for a year the Marlins can’t reasonably expect to compete with the Nats & Braves and probably the Mets), the overpriced Reyes, and Buehrle, who is a model of consitency but not the future. In return, they got 3 of the top 10 Jays’ prospects (basic the FG Top -15 list done by Marc Hulet), a big league SS and a 22-year old Alvarez who maybe has a lot of upside? And if one takes into account the trade with the Tigers, that got the Marlins a probable every-day starting catched in Brantly, and another young SP with upside in Jacob Turner, and prying Eovaldi from the Dodgers for Hanley, it looks like the Marlins have 4 under 22-year old MLB arms (Turner, Eovaldi, Alvarez, Nicolino) (and X years under control – I don’t know how much but it must be a lot?), which seems like it might make a lot of sense. And they dumped > $200M in contracts (all in)? It looks like the Jays were able to keep their top 3 or 4 prospects (D”Arnaud, Gose, Sanchez, Syndergaard) and one wonders if the Marlins tried for them, but otherwise this doesn’t look incredibly crazy to me. If I were a Marlins fan I would’ve been more upset by the overpays last year (and trading for Ozzie Guillen) than I am by this. Maybe I’m alone in this thinking, I realize.

Tim
Guest
Tim
3 years 10 months ago

Yeah, we can maybe go back to the beginning and suggest that they could have held steady on Hanley and tried to be competitive next year, but once they decided not to do that, moving these guys as well has to be the right thing to do. There’s no point in a half-assed rebuilding.

Consensus seems to be that the Red Sox “won” when they sold half their team to the Dodgers. I don’t see how this is any different, except for the lack of passionate Marlins fans.

hk
Guest
hk
3 years 10 months ago

I agree, especially when you also consider that they back-loaded the Reyes and Buehrle contracts. They signed Reyes for $17.7M / year for his age 29-34 seasons and Buehrle for $14.5M / year for his age 33-36 seasons, paid each of them $10M and now Toronto gets Reyes for $19.2M / year for his age 30-34 seasons and Buehrle for $16M / year for his age 34-36 seasons.

Mike
Guest
Mike
3 years 10 months ago

From a baseball sense, I agree completely. If I were a Marlins fan, though, I think this whole situation would make me more upset and pessimistic than the good baseball move would make me happy.

waynetolleson
Guest
waynetolleson
3 years 10 months ago

My response to this article requires three simple words:

Bull

F*cking

Sh*t.

Owen G
Guest
Owen G
3 years 10 months ago

I just want to say that it has been an exceptionally good day at Fangraphs. I really appreciated the two different perspectives that Eno and Dave have provided on the Marlins situation. I also thought Dave’s article on the Torii Hunter signing was fantastic. Just a great job all around combining solid quantitative and qualitative analysis. I only wish I had more time to read everything on the site.

Great job!

Ewing
Guest
Ewing
3 years 10 months ago

I never knew Armond White started writing baseball articles. This is as contrarian as it gets.

Tomrigid
Guest
Tomrigid
3 years 10 months ago

It’s the stadium. Without that, they’re just being the same flavor of douche as every other team. But the way they financed it — the dirty politics and crass design and all the rest, makes this latest teardown seem like blatant theft.

Fans aren’t shareholders — they’re stakeholders, and their stake got stuck in their hearts.

Andy
Guest
Andy
3 years 10 months ago

I think the Marlins are a very intriguing organization. As an avid arm chair GM who’s favorite games are things like Out of the park , the fact they turn over roster in this manner is very very interesting.

However, I don’t feel like they are very good at it or at least as good as they could be. There are teams that build through the farm. Minny and Atlanta have historically done so and had long runs of success. As an avid fan of GM posturing, GM’s like Billy Bean seem to have it right. Why it takes Miami so many years between booms is surprising considering their sell offs. You would think they would dump the saved money into their developmental prospects.

It seems like their plan is a more successful version of the pirates sell off than the A’s/Tampa

Oliver
Guest
Oliver
3 years 10 months ago

I think the premise of this article is wrongheaded. The purpose of a company (usually) isn’t just “to make money.” The purpose is to provide a good or service in a way that the provider is compensated, i.e. mutually beneficial transactions. For example: if you’re a carpenter your job isn’t to make money, it’s to make and sell furniture. The money you make is compensation for the time, energy and materials used to make the furniture.

In this sense then, the “purpose” of a baseball team is to win. People are upset that the Marlins don’t seem to be working towards that. Every stumbling block is seen as a reason to trade away every star on the team. Franchise players get traded away or are let go during free agency. An 87-win season is followed by standing pat, not adding free agents to get into the postseason. All of this creates a sense that the team doesn’t care about its record and that keeps away fans and it keeps away players, whether or not the reputation is deserved.

wobatus
Guest
wobatus
3 years 10 months ago

They didn’t add payroll after 2009 likely because they planned to really go mall in for 2012.

BTW, the players like to make every last dime they can usually, too. They get off fairly lightly while Loria is portrayed as the devil incarnate for wanting to make money off the team within the rules.

brad
Guest
brad
3 years 10 months ago

So basically it’s a good policy to lie to your customers and pick the pockets of your coworkers provided you end up with a higher checking balance at the end of the day?

Loria’s plan is to profit at the cost of the fans, the other teams, and ultimately the good of the sport itself. That it works is not a validation of the plan, it’s vulture capitalism at its most extreme. Loria is no better than the NHL owners trying to kill the sport for higher short term profits.

Imagine if every team were run like this. Is that what the writer of this article actually wants? Claiming “it works” would seem so. The Marlins are a business AND a franchise. If a McDonald’s owner sells his McD ingredients out the back door and uses crap he buys from the gas station next door he might manage to up his profits, but he’s not growing his business and by putting out a sub-par product he’s harming the McDonalds brand. And if there were only 30 McD’s in the world that harm would be substantial.

Besides which, part of the reason baseball has an anti-trust exemption is the idea that it has public value.

That it means Jeffery Loria earns a few more million in the coming years does not make the Marlins a well run company, unless you really buy into the idea that the only point of business is for the people at the very, very top to remove value from society.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

Also known as romnian economics

wobatus
Guest
wobatus
3 years 10 months ago

Only Loria “removed” value? People are forced to watch the games and pay to go to games? Jose Reyes, Buehrle and Bell all get to take million out of the revenues of the team but they are altruistically doing it for the good of the game?

I guarantee you Stu Sternberg wants to make money. And his team is very well run. And they win. But they can’t draw fans in Florida either.

Cidron
Member
Cidron
3 years 10 months ago

Yes, I agree.. Tampa cannot draw fans. But, how much of that is due to the Trop, and not the team? Bad stadium, bad location of stadium, bland interior and exterior.

Slacker George
Guest
Slacker George
3 years 10 months ago

Good point about every team using the Marlin franchise as a model. Compare with if every team used the “Moneyball” Athletics as a model. Which model would be a better product for the fan and media corporations to invest in? Free markets need immediate “tar and feather” squads. Otherwise, the retribution is too late and too little.

Outliarbaseball.com
Guest
3 years 10 months ago

I see a lot of people putting words in the mouths of Marlins’ fans. I’d like to hear from a Marlins’ fan, if there were such a thing.

Paul
Guest
Paul
3 years 10 months ago

This comment, and the chirping sounds that follow pretty much sums up the entire article.

Cidron
Member
Cidron
3 years 10 months ago

Hmm.. Seems that Stanton said it well “I am pissed right now”. If a player isnt a fan of his own team, then who is?

bflaff
Guest
bflaff
3 years 10 months ago

You could only concoct an argument that the Marlins are a well-run corporation if you ignore the fraud and the heavy (if not complete) reliance on corporate welfare. By the logic employed here, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was a paragon of corporate success… at least until the feds showed up with warrants and dollies. Loria’s in the same boat. If someone decided to turn off the free money spigot, the franchise would miss payroll faster than you could say, “Hey, has anyone seen Jeff?”

Paul
Guest
Paul
3 years 10 months ago

You just described every single Wall Street investment bank. Without the Fed’s free money at the overnight window, they’d all be unable to honor their obligations many times every year. And this is well known and deemed acceptable by the government.

Jim Lahey
Guest
Jim Lahey
3 years 10 months ago

Aren’t the Marlins helping the rest of baseball by being shitty? Thinking about it…

They can’t draw more than 20k on their own regardless of time of year – other teams draw significantly better. Especially in their division (all major markets) If for example the Braves are 15-4 vs the Marlins, that boosts their win % and therefore their attendance. The Braves draw a lot better so I’m thinking transferring these wins from the Marlins to the Braves actually makes baseball MORE money because of the playoff race implications and fan base support of the other teams. Marlins still get their $$ With the Rev Sharing agreement.
Heres a question – Would Loria stand to make more money by having nobody attend his games and the team go 0-162?

brad
Guest
brad
3 years 10 months ago

Also worth adding that the difference between this and the Red Sox trade is that while the results next year might not be that different, tho the Sox have upside the new Marlins roster lacks, there’s every reason to believe that nearly every dollar the Sox saved will end up back out there on the field in some way. There’s no reason to believe a single cent saved in Miami will end up anywhere besides Loria’s pockets.

Patrick G
Guest
Patrick G
3 years 10 months ago

Plus, the Red Sox trade wasn’t part of some pattern. The Marlins have a perception (real or perceived, at this point it doesn’t matter) of signing free agents in bad faith. They pulled this exact same stunt when they signed Carlos Delgado to a back-loaded deal. The Marlins have had a long history of fire-sales that seem designed to lower costs at the most self-serving moments.

Albert Lang
Guest
Albert Lang
3 years 10 months ago

I dont understand how an organization can be well run if it hires a manager and signs three players only to fire the manager and somewhat dump the players less than a year later.

If you’re point is that a well run baseball team is one that makes money and has a free ride on the public’s dime, then yes the Marlins are great. However, there are a lot of owners that dont act like this — owners that have presided over far more successful teams than the Marlins brass.

You can say they have the 6th best record since Lauria and won a championship. However that was in year 2 and it was the teams’ only championship and play-off appearance. At best they have been mediocre. A well run baseball team is not one that banks the most coin, has a free stadium ride and has a decent record. It’s just not.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think unless you address the failures, manager turnover and other issues, especially since 2003, you cant say the organization is well run.

An all or nothing approach is all well and good, but the team hasnt been in a position for the championship in a looooong time. They are also the laughing stock…

Patrick G
Guest
Patrick G
3 years 10 months ago

Major League Baseball is not just a business — it’s a federally protected monopoly that allows collusion. Why? Because the government has decided that a stable, organized, game is more in the public interest than a dynamic, free-market game would be. I take that to mean that profit is not and should not be the driving factor in running an MLB team. Should an owner be forced to take a loss? No, but I consider it in bad taste to treat a team like an ATM when you’re immune from anti-trust prosecution.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

I wouldn’t say the marlins are swell run company. They are profitable. Thats one aspect. I am more of a balanced scorecard guy. They rarely make the playoffs and haven’t won a ring in almost 10 years. So as far as quality, that’s pretty low. Basically, chevy. At one point they were awesome, not so much now.

Profitability, artificially good (rev sharing).

Customer satisfaction? Awful, maybe the worst in their industry.

Internal processes? I suppose this is good, they have winning seasons through developing drafted and traded young guys.

Essentially, the marlins are like a highly profitable company that makes a mediocre product and uses sweat shops and screws over suppliers and workers.

Phrozen
Guest
Phrozen
3 years 10 months ago

Not winning a ring in “almost 10 years” is hardly a sign of low quality.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

Not making the playoffs. It’s not high quality. Mediocre? They were not once one of the best in their industry over that time. I don’t care that they won e crapshoot the one year, 10 years ago that they were. Over the
Last 9 years they haven’t been better than mediocre in quality, have had horrible customer satisfaction, and are hated by peers and industry analysts. It’s literally only top executive pay and profit where they are good and that’s only through welfare. That is not a well run company unless you’re a utilitarian, which in America in 2012 after Citi Group and Enron, you shouldn’t be.

miffleball
Guest
miffleball
3 years 10 months ago

just waiting for the yankees, red sox, dodgers, angels and whoever else pays real money into the revenue sharing to refuse to pay until loria is out. gotta happen one of these days. it’s one thing to pay to make baseball better. it’s another to tip loria for developing players efficiently

chuckb
Guest
chuckb
3 years 10 months ago

I don’t agree with you at all on this, Eno, but I think you did a great job presenting the other side of the argument. I don’t know if you really buy it either or if you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate but it’s really done well. And this side needed to be presented.

That said, you really can’t compare the Astros trading off their scrubs to the Marlin’s trading all but one of their best (and much better) players. It’s nowhere near the same situation. This is a team who could have, with a couple good acquisitions and a little luck, been next year’s A’s or O’s. The Astros were baseball’s worst organization in many years. It’s not the same thing.

Good Old JR
Guest
Good Old JR
3 years 10 months ago

It was a great baseball move since they weren’t going to contend this year, even if they added Greinke and Hamilton. If you can get someone to take those backloaded contracts that is a good thing. The Mets analogy is perfect, the Mets are actually at a disadvantage because there would be such outrage if they ever made a move like this (even if it got them closer to a championship in the big picture).

Having the public finance a stadium to pad a millionaire’s pocket is disgusting, but it’s really a completely seperate issue. It would still be disgusting if they had won the World Series last year.

Same with the revenue sharing, if you don’t want the Marlins to use the system to increase profts, change that system. It’s also a completely seperate issue. Dumping those contracts got them closer to contending whether they are receiving baseball welfare or not.

Jay Stevens
Guest
Jay Stevens
3 years 10 months ago

It’s a well run company, but a terrible baseball franchise. You overplay the Marlins’ success. They’ve had only 6 winning seasons in 20 years, and never finished first. Their WS wins have little to do with baseball operations, as we know here that success in playoffs has a lot to do with luck. Their product stinks.

But then, Loria and the Marlins are only “successful” if you measure success in terms of profit. Which is a pretty terrible way of measuring value or greatness.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

Not even a well run company though. Simply making a profit isn’t all there is. I don’t see this as a sustainable model. Most of the profit is from cheating the system. Employees and fans aren’t happy. Their peers aren’t happy. Industry analysts aren’t happy. The product quality sucks. How is that a well run company? Saying “a profitable company is a good company” is the same narrow logic that people use when saying Cabrera was better than Trout.

Antonio bananas
Guest
Antonio bananas
3 years 10 months ago

What if they required teams to publicly show their financial statements if they accept shared revenue and/or have a stadium that was more than 50% publicly funded?

Tiger Mountain
Guest
Tiger Mountain
3 years 10 months ago

Good to see a Mets fan, a fan of the worst-run organization in MLB, stick up for Miami. They’ll win their third WS before the Mets even sniff the postseason. The Wilpons make Loria seem like a genius.

Devil's Advocate
Guest
Devil's Advocate
3 years 10 months ago

I agree with Eno. The definition of a successful team is just about making maximum cash, and has nothing to do with trying to win baseball games.

The public is a bunch of suckers, and if Mr. Loria can trick them into gifting him a half-billion dollars worth of stadium, more power to him!

Anthony
Guest
Anthony
3 years 10 months ago

I am an actual Marlins fan, and one who normally defends the organization because of many of the points made above. From a baseball perspective, I don’t really mind this trade that much. No sense in paying $120M for a 69 win team.

However, this article assumes there is no such thing as ethics or morality in baseball nor the business world. And while those things, unfortunately, may not be priorities for any business organization, it doesn’t mean we should stop asking for them.

I was a season ticket holder last year, but will not be renewing after hearing David Sampson praising Jeff Loria for keeping the team here and creating the stadium, as if we should be thankful for his great charitable works. It was extremely condescending, and immediately sealed my decision.

Cidron
Member
Cidron
3 years 10 months ago

If you are a Marlins fan, aside from Stanton, who’s jersey do you buy?

wpDiscuz