Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt
I'm right there. I do not want them to commit long term dollars to just about anyone on the market this season. Seems like an unwise investment, but hell, I've only been saying that for nine months.
I'm right there. I do not want them to commit long term dollars to just about anyone on the market this season. Seems like an unwise investment, but hell, I've only been saying that for nine months.
that was an odd interview.
He said the Braves would not be signing top of the market free agents most likely, but would be doing some things. Then mentioned that the team had limitations -- then said those limitations were not all payroll -- then said they had moves to make that would make them ... versatile?
It was a strange interview, I thought. I mostly took it as Hart saying they would not be signing a premium free agent, but they might be able to do some other things, but had roster limitations.
That was the same place where he said the Braves don't believe in sending money with players to get them off the roster in reference to Kemp and Markakis, which I think is dumb -- since those are money savers really and he'd just basically conceded that Kemp isn't a very good player and needed to be traded.
I will believe it when I see it. Until then, it's pure conjecture on your part, based almost entirely off trades we have made and attendance numbers. I have gone record saying I think payroll will be around the 115-120 mark, in line with last season.
In line? Payroll was $125M in 2017.
I suppose you are going to resort to arguing over how much of a decrease in payroll counts as a decrease now.
I've been pretty clear for awhile that I don't think we'll make any big signings. We could still add players through trades. And considering the 40 man crunch, I think it's pretty likely we'll make at least 1 major trade.
Do we know the true number? I read where the payroll was 122 million opening day. Any changes of about 5 percent or less are pretty irrelevant and don't support your argument at all.
As I said, you have resorted to arguing about how much of a decrease “counts”.
If they were making projected revenues payroll would be going up towards the stated goal of being Top 10 ($160M+). It would not remain flat. It would not decrease...not even by 5%.
I’m sure the bar of what “counts” will move to fit the narrative...flat...5% decline....10% decline....whatever it takes to remain steadfastly pozzy.
Hell, I just read a post from tehteh that the bad attendance numbers were actually a GOOD thing haha.
The way you’re trying to use one metric, revenue, as confirmation for your pre-conceived notion is incredible. Citing revenue is like looking solely at the “hit” stat in baseball.
There’s not a whole lot that’s been released about the Q3 results but I’ve pasted what I’ve been able to find below.
A couple thoughts:
This tracking stock continues to miss Earnings Per Share estimates. Not like it’s crushing.
There were 41 home games in this period compared to 35. That’s 17% more and contributes to what seems like a large jump in revenue for the quarter.
OIBDA (operating income before depreciation and amortization) is fairly strong during this period, which does indicate that once the Battery is fully up and running (and we end handing out stock based comp) that the team will see improved profitability. If/when that happens, but there’s no payroll increase, THAT is when you can tell everyone you were right.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/liber...131500730.html
BRAVES GROUP – The following table provides the financial results attributed to the Braves Group for the third quarter of 2017. In the third quarter, approximately $1 million of corporate level selling, general and administrative expense (including stock-based compensation expense) was allocated to the Braves Group.
3Q16 3Q17
amounts in millions
Braves Group
Revenue
Corporate and other $ 109 $ 185
Total Braves Group $ 109 $ 185
Operating Income (Loss)
Corporate and other 1 (9 )
Total Braves Group $ 1 $ (9 )
Adjusted OIBDA
Corporate and other 16 48
Total Braves Group $ 16 $ 48
The following table provides the operating results of Braves Holdings, LLC (“Braves”).
Braves Operating Results
3Q16 3Q17 % Change
amounts in millions
Total revenue $ 109 $ 185 70 %
Operating expenses (excluding stock-based compensation included below):
Other operating expenses (78 ) (109 ) (40 ) %
Selling, general and administrative expenses (15 ) (27 ) (80 ) %
Adjusted OIBDA $ 16 $ 49 206 %
Stock-based compensation (2 ) (33 ) (1,550 ) %
Depreciation and Amortization (12 ) (24 ) (100 ) %
Operating income (loss) $ 2 $ (8 ) (500 ) %
Number of home game openings in period 35 41
The increase in Braves revenue in the quarter was primarily attributable to an increase in ballpark operations revenue driven by the Braves move to their new ballpark, SunTrust Park. Ticket sales, concessions, corporate sales, suites and premium seat fees all increased during the third quarter.
Operating loss increased compared to the prior year primarily as a result of increased stock-based compensation expense due to an increase in the estimated value of the Braves, combined with the continued vesting of outstanding awards, which resulted in a higher accrual for Braves’ equity compensation. Increased depreciation and amortization expense due to the depreciation of assets associated with the Braves mixed-use facility and SunTrust Park also impacted the operating loss. Adjusted OIBDA increased primarily due to the increase in ballpark operations revenue as discussed above, partially offset by increased costs associated with baseball and ballpark operations and the mixed-use facility.
Considering last year was a franchise record in terms of payroll, staying within 5 or so million of last season would be considered staying stagnant by any unbiased source and not some sort of drastic payroll reduction like you've been suggesting (actually more than suggest, you pass it off as fact).
It doesn't support your argument in any way and you know it. Especially when you've belittled other posters for saying payroll would be in the 120 range.
Last edited by Carp; 11-12-2017 at 12:23 PM.
This tread:
Reads article, posts: “Operating profits are up, that’s a good sign”
Reply to post: “Idiot”
/end thread
thethe (11-12-2017)
You are all over the map on this. From guaranteeing a decrease to saying that anything short of a significant increase is a failure.
Huh?
Reading comprehension. Get some. Please.
I say anything less than a significant increase IS a failure. It's a failure of the long term plan. If you start rebuilding in 2015 with the idea that you want to short circuit the traditional 5 year rebuild, you have to know that when offseason 2017/2018 arrives, that you will have ample payroll space to fill voids - because there will be voids. If you took the same approach to the rebuild without knowing that you had the finances necessary available to help short circuit the process then you have no real plan, just a vague hope - essentially you are counting on a number of excellent AND cheap players riding in full formed on the back of a Unicorn just when you need them.
Hawk (11-12-2017)
The Braves profits before stock compensation and depreciation tripled over the same quarter last season and that's not something that can be explained by a 17% increase in home dates. Even if it could be, the two combined quarters are well ahead of last year's profits and by definition a team has the same number of home dates each season.
An earnings miss is simply not meeting outside analysts estimates of earnings. It's hardly something that usually results in heads rolling and it would not be a particularly good piece of evidence to base a prediction for a decrease in payroll upon.
I don't see any particular reason why the Braves would be moving towards a top 10 payroll and the interview that people typically cite as evidence they were "promised" that was a question from a journalist using those specific figures in the question and the front office official saying we are hoping to raise payroll and get somewhere around there eventually.
Personally, I don't see how they become a big market team until they have a TV deal that isn't among the least profitable in baseball.
Either way, at the beginning of this past season I suggested that it didn't make sense for the Braves to splurge in the free agent market this offseason and that had nothing to do with revenue projections. They have no reason to invest heavily in free agents until they dispose of Matt Kemp. Their window in my view isn't opening until they move him. so they might as well focus on short term fixes until then.
Last edited by Southcack77; 11-12-2017 at 04:12 PM.
I think folks forget the exact order of events.
When the Braves decided to relocate, they were a good team routinely drawing 2.5 million per year to Turner. They decided to relocate to draw MORE than 2.5 million to generate MORE revenue.
A typical attendance boost from a new park should have put them close to 3 million in 2017. All ROI analyses were done with that figure and that revenue in mind.
When the rebuild was started they knew they had to be good enough in 2017 to draw the projected 3 million fans. That’s why every single trade was made with an eye towards competing in 2017.
When 2017 finally arrived, they boosted payroll from ~$100M to ~$125M. They did this because they still projected 3 million in attendance.
Problem is the Braves still sucked and attendance was bad. We saw them try to pare back payroll a bit and take the cheap route with all trades made at the deadline.
Now they are probably projecting 2.5 million in attendance this year as well, and due to that lower attendance we will be seeing a lower payroll...something like $110M-$115M, which is what we typically saw with Turner attendance/revenue numbers.
How that is anything other than a failure is only the opinion of diehard pozzy derps.
Last edited by Enscheff; 11-12-2017 at 04:09 PM.
No it isn't.
I dismiss the idea that the front office set out to "short circuit" any process. I think you meant to say that they intended to make the rebuild shorter than the five years that it takes just about every organization ever. I think there is very little evidence for that and I think you've latched on to it because it helps you feel happier about how miserably you want things to be going.
The rebuild was always subject to same market forces and limitations that apply to 31 other teams. The front office did next to nothing to try and make it a three year process. You are simply wrong about this in my view. Very wrong.
It may well end up failing. I have no idea. But at this point there is very little reason why it has to. The proof will be in the 2020s they way it was always going to be.
Last edited by Southcack77; 11-12-2017 at 04:11 PM.
Lol did you really just write “The front office did next to nothing to try and make it a three year process.”?
What rebuild were you watching haha?
Horsehide Harry (11-12-2017)
The one where their major acquisitions in their "going for it" year were aging veterans on one year deals that cost next to nothing.
The one where they have still not traded a significant prospect for a major league player.
The one where they have churned over mlb players and upper minors prospects for high risk high reward prospects that were fairly distant from being able to contribute.
The one where they traded a slew of major league proven young players under reasonable contract in 2017 for prospects that were not projected to be playoff ready in 2017.
Haha so keeping Teheran, keeping Freeman, signing Markakis, trading for Olivera, trading for Kemp, hitching BJ to Kimbrel to clear his contract, trading CJ for Swisher and Bourn to clear those contracts by 2017, starting Swanson’s clock early, starting Albies’ clock early.
Was that part of the rebuild where they “did next to nothing for 2017”? Or have I been following a completely different rebuild?
There was a time when you mocked the very idea that the Braves payroll was as high as 122 million even when that claim was supported by the AJC link.
Now you are pretty blithely claiming that its 125 million at least.
You are already resigned to the payroll being about what it was last year, aren't you?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote