Wild Rumor/Pure Speculation: Dolan Received 15 Mil Loan from MLB

[GreasySpread36]

This is a huge misconception in this town. Here are the payrolls since the 90's glory years:

2011: $48,173,000
2010: $60,810,000
2009: $81,579,166
2008: $78,970,066
2007: $61,673,267
2006: $56,031,500
2005: $41,502,500
2004: $34,319,300
2003: $48,584,834
2002: $78,909,499
2001: $93,360,000
2000: $76,500,000 * team sold to Dolan
1999: $73,857,962
1998: $59,033,499
1997: $54,130,232
1996: $45,317,914
1995: $35,185,500
1994: $28,490,167

Notice that in the "glory years" of comepetition ('95-'97) the payroll didn't top $55 million. As soon as the payroll skyrocketed to $90 million, Jacob's sold the team. During the competitive years of the Dolans' watch, the payroll increased back to around $80 million (just as he promised he would spend when the time was right).

The difference in MLB is that, due to cable revenues, the major market teams have an automatic advantage in payroll. For instance, buying ONE rating point in Cleveland is worth $500, while one rating point in New York is worth $5,000. Assuming both teams do a one rating (which is low) during JUST the game, not counting pre- and post-game, the Indians would earn $36,000, while the Yankess would earn $360,000 per game. Over the course of a season, that means the Indians would earn $5.8 million, while the Yankess would earn $58.3 million.

This has resulted in the Yankess payroll going from $60 in 1997, to $196 million in 2011. What this means is that no matter how much a small market team spends, it is very easy for a large market to outspend them. If we offered Sabathia the same deal the Yankees did, they could have easily tacked on another $20 million, while the contract would have crippled our team.

The problem with the system is that small markets are left to over-spend on mid-market talent. We spent on guys like Jake Westbrook and Travis Hafner, because they are the only level of talent we could re-sign. But those guys weren't good enough to sustain a championship team.

More or less, the difference in a $40 million payroll and an $80 million payroll for a small market isn't all that great. The additional money is more than likely going to be spent on mid-level talent that isn't good enough to make you compete. That is why you see the Indians blow the team up and try to get enough young talent that hasn't reached FA to peak at the same time.

So while the Dolans make themselves an easy target, it is a reality for all small markets. You will see some teams like the Twins have success (though no playoff wins) or the Rays put together a good team (which took 10 years of losing seasons - something this town would never stand for) - but, really, the Indians have been about as successful in the small-market model as anyone.

Another point is exactly as you state above. Cleveland is one of the smallest markets - surely the smallest METRO area with three professional teams. When you add in the economic downturn, I understand why attendance is down. But that doesn't mean the Dolans are a bank and can afford to spend tons of money with little chance of seeing a return. And an owner that CAN do that is not going to buy a team in Cleveland for the reasons we both just laid out. So the Indians' payroll will be forever tied to attendance which will be forever tied to performance which will be forever tied to payroll.

It is a catch-22. Do the owners spend at a huge loss trying to recoup the fans (as they did in '08 and '09) or do the fans support a losing team, understanding that this is the reality of MLB and not a Cleveland-only situation.

So far, neither side wants to budge.

You just spent a lot of time writing without addressing my main point, which is:

Why is it that the front office and ownership can use market size and economic realities to justify the moves they make yet the same courtesy isn't extended to the fans?

Do you really expect the fans in a shrinking, economically depressed city to just fill the ballpark, no questions asked, for a team that went a combined 28 games under .500 from 2001 through 2010? And if they don't, they're "shitty fans?" Seriously?

 

[Nom]

You just spent a lot of time writing without addressing my main point, which is:

Why is it that the front office and ownership can use market size and economic realities to justify the moves they make yet the same courtesy isn't extended to the fans?

Do you really expect the fans in a shrinking, economically depressed city to just fill the ballpark, no questions asked, for a team that went a combined 28 games under .500 from 2001 through 2010? And if they don't, they're "shitty fans?" Seriously?

You are COMPLETELY changing the argument. The original point I was contesting was that if the Indians produce a winner, the fans will support it. I showed that when the Indians HAVE won, there has been very little support.

To combat my point, it was brought up that the Indians haven't won consistently and that they don't have any "star power".

I (admittedly) veered the conversation towards the payroll issue, as most fans come back to this when explaining WHY the team has been bad and doesn't have star power.

Now, you are changing the argument to say that the economy sucks, so you can't expect fans to fill the ball-park. Which is fine. I don't think we'll ever see great attendance in the park again and I undestand that. Fan support of late has been much better and, though I would hope it would continue to increase if we compete, being a top 10, or even top 15 team in attendance is a pipe dream.

BUT - by those same reasons, you cannot get angry at the owner for not spending and point to the sell-out streak as if that is a likely scenario should the team start winning again. The economy tanked for Dolan as well, and we can point directly at attendance numbers to prove that. If fans don't have the disposable income to show up at the stadium, that directly impacts the disposable income of the team to spend - which then impacts their ability to win consistently and have star power.

My argument as to being a shitty fan is more that when the team IS winning and still not receiving support. By nature, fans are people who cheer their team whether they win or lose. Even when the Indians are winning, they are in the bottom 5 in attendance - that would seem to indicate this team has shitty fans.

 

[GreasySpread36]

To combat my point, it was brought up that the Indians haven't won consistently and that they don't have any "star power"..

The team hasn't won consistently. Three 90-loss seasons in ten years, no back-to-back winning seasons, a cumulative 28 games under .500 from 2001 through 2010- that isn't consistent winning by any measure. You want to bring up 2005 and 2007, that's fine. I can just as easily bring up 2003, 2009 and 2010. And you can call those rebuilding years, but the bottom line is the team wasn't winning games. And this city has NEVER supported losing baseball- ever.

BUT - by those same reasons, you cannot get angry at the owner for not spending and point to the sell-out streak as if that is a likely scenario should the team start winning again.

I personally have no issue with the amount ownership spends. I don't think anyone should expect any business owner to consciously run a deficit. My problem is with the drafting record of the front office, which has been abysmal.

 

[Nom]

The team hasn't won consistently. Three 90-loss seasons in ten years, no back-to-back winning seasons, a cumulative 28 games under .500 from 2001 through 2010- that isn't consistent winning by any measure. You want to bring up 2005 and 2007, that's fine. I can just as easily bring up 2003, 2009 and 2010. And you can call those rebuilding years, but the bottom line is the team wasn't winning games. And this city has NEVER supported losing baseball- ever.



I personally have no issue with the amount ownership spends. I don't think anyone should expect any business owner to consciously run a deficit. My problem is with the drafting record of the front office, which has been abysmal.

The entire argument was that fans want to support this team. My argument is that they don't really care about this team. You can argue that they sucked for a few years and I can argue that they were decent for a few years - but if fans were truly itching to come cheer the Tribe, then there would have been bigger spikes in the good years.

The point I was arguing was against people saying that we sold out 455 games and could do it again. You are arguing that fans have a reason for not showing up in bad years. Those are completely different arguments.

And your last line actually tells me we probably agree on this. The Indians never had fans from the 60's to the mid-90's and then had a 6-7 year stretch of great support. The anomoly is the great support, not the crappy support in recent years. Which is why I say that the Browns being gone, the new stadium and no LeBron is why the 90's saw such great attendance. What we are seeing now is just what we saw for most of this teams' history.

 

[AZ_]

The team hasn't won consistently. Three 90-loss seasons in ten years, no back-to-back winning seasons, a cumulative 28 games under .500 from 2001 through 2010- that isn't consistent winning by any measure. You want to bring up 2005 and 2007, that's fine. I can just as easily bring up 2003, 2009 and 2010. And you can call those rebuilding years, but the bottom line is the team wasn't winning games. And this city has NEVER supported losing baseball- ever.

I personally have no issue with the amount ownership spends. I don't think anyone should expect any business owner to consciously run a deficit. My problem is with the drafting record of the front office, which has been abysmal.

It's not the same front office, especially from a scouting and drafting perspective.

 

[Nom]

To piggy-back on b00bie's point - Chisenhall and Kipnis were both draftees - as were White and Pomeranz who just netted us Jiminiez.

The track record of our drafts was terrible before 2008 - but we're starting to see a lot of guys come through the system that were drafted by the Indians.

 

[Pyro]

Trying to send this to Bruce.

Dear Bruce,

I write you this e-mail knowing Gene won't read it on the air, but hoping that Gene will at least read it to you in private. Our announcers on STO (Matt Underwood and Rick Manning) have to be two of the worst announcers I have ever heard in my 19 years of watching baseball. I frequently finding myself muting the TV and putting Tom Hamilton on, because he is always a consummate professional.
What exactly is Rick Manning's problem? I have never heard an encouraging word from him towards the Indians, it's always about how "we got lucky" or "the other team is doing GREAT!". Last night was the final straw for me. He INSISTED even after PERFECT evidence, that Asdrubal's second HR was not a HR. After the umpires came out, he was shocked that it was a HR, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. What kind of home announcer is THAT? I know he caught the last out of a perfect game, but I guess that makes him think he is some sort of special being bestowed upon us.
As for Underwood, I can't count on both hands how many mistake he makes a game. From getting the count wrong, to names and numbers. He's just pretty terrible.

It is time to fire these guys at the end of the season, and bring in some competent professionals. If the rumors of STO's sale to FoxSports Ohio are true, I will be glad, because I know they will hire some announcers who actually want to be there and give a damn about the Indians.

Thanks for letting me rant, and maybe you'll address it on the air, or maybe you won't, either way, thanks for hopefully reading.

-Corey in Youngstown

 

[Pavlovic3Ball]

Not only is Cleveland a football town, but Ohio is a football crazed state from HS to college to pros. Aside from about a 7 year period in the mid 90's to the early 00's, the Indians were mostly known as the crappy team that played in an empty Municipal Stadium. Plus, it's all about supply and demand. Progrssive Field holds a little under 44,000 and they have 82 home games a year. Cleveland Browns Stadium holds 73,000 and they have 10 home games a year (including preseason). Though Cleveland has always favored the Browns, it's always easier to sell out an 8 game schedule than to draw huge numbers every night for an 82 game schedule, especially with some of the other factors that people have mentioned.

You make some nice points. But football town or not, the Indians have been a better organization than than the Browns have since they returned. Even the Bengals have made the playoffs more than us since 99. I'm not a fan of the Indians rebuilding years, but they are a competitive team at times and on the way up. Unlike the Browns who are years away from even being playoff worthy.

 

[AZ_]

Trying to send this to Bruce.

Every front office/telecast/radio show receives dozens of these emails a day.

I can assure you, the workers will more or less just show disdain towards your email as they file it away with the rest of the unstable people with nothing better to do than write and attack TV personalities.

As they should.

So....'grats on being 'that guy.'

Mazel tov.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

You make some nice points. But football town or not, the Indians have been a better organization than than the Browns have since they returned. Even the Bengals have made the playoffs more than us since 99. I'm not a fan of the Indians rebuilding years, but they are a competitive team at times and on the way up. Unlike the Browns who are years away from even being playoff worthy.

The point is, football will always be king in Cleveland. People in Cleveland as a whole don't care about baseball as much as football. I think in someways you could compare the Browns situation in Cleveland to OSU football in Columbus. No matter what happens, those two teams are always going to have a great following and sell a lot of tickets year after year, even if they have a few crappy seasons. OSU basketball, the Indians, and the Cavs are all secondary. That's just how it is, and barring something miraculous, that's always how it's going to be. It doesn't matter if the Indians have been a better organization.

That being said, Cleveland will support the Indians. Anyone who thinks they can sell out every night is either delusional or lying to themselves, but that doesn't mean that prolonged success won't lead to dramatically increased attendance. As others have mentioned, success has been sporadic over the last 10 years for the Indians. Sometimes there are just things that you can't explain in life, and one of those things is the undying love and support for the Browns, no matter how crappy they've been since they came back into the league. The Cubs sell out every game and they've been hot garbage for a while, but much like the Browns in Cleveland, Chicago has a soft spot for them.

 

[Pavlovic3Ball]

I can't stand Underwood more than Manning. Especially when he thinks an Indians player hits a home run and the ball is ccaught like 15 feet in front of the warning track.

 

[Pyro]

Every front office/telecast/radio show receives dozens of these emails a day.

I can assure you, the workers will more or less just show disdain towards your email as they file it away with the rest of the unstable people with nothing better to do than write and attack TV personalities.

As they should.

So....'grats on being 'that guy.'

Mazel tov.

I will be "that guy" laughing when STO is sold and everyone, Bruce included, is fired.

 

[AZ_]

I will be "that guy" laughing when STO is sold and everyone, Bruce included, is fired.

Nothing says sane and stable like indiscriminate hatred for people you've never met.

 

[jnizzle]

Trying to send this to Bruce.

I think I am in the minority, but I actually like Manning. I honestly feel like I've learned different aspects of the game from him. He can be a bit repetitive, but part of that is the nature of the job, especially in when you are doing 162 games (or almost) for about 3 hours a game. I know he isn't your typical homer, but I feel like he just tries to be professional and objective. It's all preference, some fans like to feel like their guys in the booth are cheering right along with them, me I don't really care. I prefer a knowledgeable crew who can read the game. Manning reads the game exceptionally well in my opinion.

Not hating on you, like I said it's all a matter of preference.

 

[Gunther]

I will be "that guy" laughing when STO is sold and everyone, Bruce included, is fired.

Bruce has done time. He'll cut you, man.