2021 Series #1 | Indians @ Tigers | April 1st, 3rd, and 4th

[WhoAzcue]

Anyone else going to the Home Opener? I'm about to leave for the ballpark in a few minutes.

Have a great time! We look forward to reports on your day. My last home opener was against the Orioles on a frigid day in the old ballpark. Brook Jacoby was the hero...

 

[macbdog]

Anyone have a link to a stream if the home opener?

 

[Just the Facts Ma'am]

OMFG not another Dolan is cheap argument.

This is why I stopped coming to this subsection

But if someone is worth that much, it didn't mean that can actually spend that much... It's still a business and you don't want to go into the red even if you have the extra money...

Indians Fans Are Furious With Their Team's Owners

The Cleveland Indians essentially let their fans know they are punting on the 2021 season with today's long-expected trade of shortstop Francisco Lindor.

thespun.com

It was 4.6 billion and he can afford to spend money on the Indians. You don't buy things you can invest in

 

[AZ_]

It was 4.6 billion and he can afford to spend money on the Indians. You don't buy things you can invest in

You don’t invest in things that don’t make you more money.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

You don’t invest in things that don’t make you more money.

1) This. Otherwise... it's not an investment. Nobody is going to willingly light 100 million dollars on fire every year. Also, we've been more successful than most of the "big spending" organizations in baseball. Bitching about owner spending is a weak argument that falls apart quickly.
2) Why isn't any disdain ever targeted towards the fans? Cleveland fans, even when spoiled with some of the best baseball any organization in MLB has witnessed, did not pack the house.

Attending baseball games isn't currently a priority in the greater Cleveland area. The fans made that loud and clear.

I feel like there are two choices:

1. We work on getting more people into the ballpark. More people living downtown is an easy one. Public transportation from the suburbs is a harder one. I think both drive numbers up significantly.
2. The Dolans sell the team, and the new owner eventually moves the team out of Cleveland

I really don't see another outcome.

 

[Criznit]

1) This. Otherwise... it's not an investment. Nobody is going to willingly light 100 million dollars on fire every year. Also, we've been more successful than most of the "big spending" organizations in baseball. Bitching about owner spending is a weak argument that falls apart quickly.
2) Why isn't any disdain ever targeted towards the fans? Cleveland fans, even when spoiled with some of the best baseball any organization in MLB has witnessed, did not pack the house.

Attending baseball games isn't currently a priority in the greater Cleveland area. The fans made that loud and clear.

I feel like there are two choices:

1. We work on getting more people into the ballpark. More people living downtown is an easy one. Public transportation from the suburbs is a harder one. I think both drive numbers up significantly.
2. The Dolans sell the team, and the new owner eventually moves the team out of Cleveland

I really don't see another outcome.

I wanna believe I am more optimistic than you.. But, that's pretty much it. I do wonder how well of a rebrand/new team name goes over though. Kicking butt would also help, but that is still up in the air.

I really hope the team gets sold and stays put. Think there is a solid chance of it happening. Also would like an owner willing to "bet" on his OWN team more often. They've gone big a few times, some (real) good, some (real bad)... It is hard to think a new owner wouldn't infuse some moolah some how, but if they're moving the team.. Major League goes from a rated R comedy to a documentary.

 

[sportscoach]

It was 4.6 billion and he can afford to spend money on the Indians. You don't buy things you can invest in

I'm on AZ_ side on this argument and if we agree on anything, then there isn't any other argument that can be made. We don't get along and don't like to agree with each other on anything so that ends this argument...

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

I wanna believe I am more optimistic than you.. But, that's pretty much it. I do wonder how well of a rebrand/new team name goes over though.

If you want to follow-up to this, hit me up in the PMs or we can head to politics or something--I don't want to clutter this thread talking about the name change.

I see no reason to believe a new name and a rebranding negatively impacts anyone. I know there are people out there who disagree, but to me... we're adults. It's a freaking name. Who cares? If there's an awful history, best to make a clean break and pick a new name. In a year it won't matter just like people getting upset over changing Jacobs Field to Progressive Field, or Gund Arena to Quicken Loans Arena.

Kicking butt would also help, but that is still up in the air.

It hasn't helped over the past eight years. I don't think our team's attendance can increase any more based off results. Maybe it can decrease? But the optimist in me thinks it's pretty stable. They've done such a good job making Progressive Field awesome for fans--between cheap tickets, good beer, awesome food, awesome environment--it's really one of the most enjoyable places to be on a summer day or night. That is going to help keep fans in the stands if we ever become bad.

I really hope the team gets sold and stays put. Think there is a solid chance of it happening.

I'm expecting the team to get sold, with an agreement "you don't move the team for 'x' years" which will result in the team getting moved to a better fanbase when those years expire.

Also would like an owner willing to "bet" on his OWN team more often.

I don't know what this means. Let's be specific--what should the organization have done differently over the past 5 years?

 

[AZ_]

Even when the Indians were absolutely among the best teams in baseball over a three year span, the tone surrounding the team largely remained unchanged.

Winning isn’t a primary motivator for attendance increases in Cleveland. Spending money isn’t either.

In my estimation, nothing will without the facilitation of an ownership change, which is largely already in the works.

Don’t see much changing in between, but the team is going to be competitive again soon, and by this time next year I’d guess we’ll be pretty optimistic about the course of the franchise from a talent perspective.

The Nolan Jones, Owen Miller, Freeman, Naylor (etc.) crop of talent is going to produce the next wave of competitive, under appreciated seasons by this franchise.

 

[Criznit]

@Out of the Rafters at the Q

Tone is hard in text sometimes lol.. I totally agree with you in general about the current outlook for the Cleveland Indians going forward. The only other thing I could think other than the items you mentioned was the new name, etc. Seems like a chance to pump up younger folks and sell new merchandise, etc. I don't see it as a negative at all. It is going to happen not matter what and I embrace it.

If being good doesn't put butts in the seats...Being average doesn't. Unless it's 10 cent beer night. You're right this doesn't move the needle much, but it could later in the season to some extent. 3 team pennant chase?..

Moving the team is always an option if attendance/revenue doesn't improve. Right now, the Indian's owner isn't well received by the fanbase in general. Right or wrong, I think that is a reasonable assumption. A new owner, brings new hope... Maybe more money, which leads to..

Betting more often... A few more bucks in FA.. Biting the bullet and risk losing Bauers. Willing to spend even if you know 2-3 years down the line that might not be so good... Over the last five years, nothing different really. Maybe not repeat Bradley at AA.. This one is hard to quantify. More risk, more boldness..

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

@Out of the Rafters at the Q

Tone is hard in text sometimes lol.. I totally agree with you in general about the current outlook for the Cleveland Indians going forward. The only other thing I could think other than the items you mentioned was the new name, etc. Seems like a chance to pump up younger folks and sell new merchandise, etc. I don't see it as a negative at all. It is going to happen not matter what and I embrace it.

If being good doesn't put butts in the seats...Being average doesn't. Unless it's 10 cent beer night. You're right this doesn't move the needle much, but it could later in the season to some extent. 3 team pennant chase?..

Moving the team is always an option if attendance/revenue doesn't improve. Right now, the Indian's owner isn't well received by the fanbase in general. Right or wrong, I think that is a reasonable assumption. A new owner, brings new hope... Maybe more money, which leads to..

Betting more often... A few more bucks in FA.. Biting the bullet and risk losing Bauers. Willing to spend even if you know 2-3 years down the line that might not be so good... Over the last five years, nothing different really. Maybe not repeat Bradley at AA.. This one is hard to quantify. More risk, more boldness..

Sounds like you don't have a single example of ownership costing us anything over the past five years?

You're right that ownership is viewed poorly by a lot of Clevelanders, but that's on them. Listen to less Trivisano and pull your heads out of your asses (the general you--not you specifically). Go enjoy one of the best organizations in sports in one of the best venues in the MLB.

Also, you never have to worry about how your tone comes across to me. It matters not at all. My favorite post is one that punches me in the mouth with a well-thought out response backed up with evidence. No need to ever apologize or explain yourself on my account

 

[Benway]

I'm thinking that the only way attendance rebounds is if the Browns leave again.

 

[WhoAzcue]

Betting more often... A few more bucks in FA.. Biting the bullet and risk losing Bauers. Willing to spend even if you know 2-3 years down the line that might not be so good... Over the last five years, nothing different really. Maybe not repeat Bradley at AA.. This one is hard to quantify. More risk, more boldness..

How in the world did Bauers cost less than Bradley? What does that have to do with ownership? That has everything to do with the front office not wanting to cast aside an asset. You and I may agree that it is wasting our time, but it's not saving any money having Bradley down and Bauers up.

Everyone seems to think that the Dolans are trying to sell, that an ownership change is in process. I can only chalk this up to wishful thinking by posters who want so badly to have this happen. I see absolutely nothing to indicate it's in the offing. Just the opposite. I think the Dolans *like* owning the Indians. The family enjoys baseball, has a remarkably stable organization, and a successful team with a bright future. The asset is increasing in value. Furthermore, if the team was on the verge of a regime change, don't you think there would be a quiet exodus from the organization? Don't you think Chernoff would have bolted for the Mets? The Dolans aren't going anywhere, and I'm thankful for that.

I'm continually amused by the criticism applied to the Dolans that presumably be solved by new ownership. "Risk more." "Take a chance." "Bet on your team." "Do things that may jeopardize the future for now." As if these were options if just the Indians had new ownership. Truth is, all these owners operate more or less the same. Always have, always will. You're kidding yourself if there is anything more than one standard deviation from the proposition that operating budgets derive from recurring revenues. More wishful than the Dolans selling is the thinking that new ownership will decouple major league payroll from the realities of the market. Tell me one rich person who digs into their pockets for long? That's not how they got rich, people! And they certainly aren't going to borrow on asset equity.

Every baseball team has the same fixed operating costs that require covering. Each team regardless of market size has to meet those basic obligations of running a team. Whatever is left over can be dedicated to MLB payroll. That makes it the main discretionary line item. It's no mystery why the Tribe, A's, and Rays have low payrolls...why on earth is that going to change under new ownership? It's not. You're delusional if you think there's a white knight out there. Much, much more likely there will be a dark knight willing to take the team to greener pastures. That so many of you actively root for that, are actually willing to see a winning organization leave just because you can't stand the owners, indicates the kind of bewildering, spiteful death wish that I simply cannot fathom in the least.

 

[CATS44]

Larry and Paul Dolan have a net worth of $600 million.

This puts them in a league with ownership in Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Colorado, San Diego, and Tampa.

In contrast, the ownerships in Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago, and KC are worth...

$3.6 billion
$4.2 billion
$1.6 billion
$1.2 billion

These numbers come from a 2019 article by Paul Ladewski, a baseball finance writer based in Chicago.

The article was written before Sherman bought the Royals, so his number is an average from multiple financial resources.

The Dolans are playing poker with a roll of quarters in a $5-$10 game....and doing a pretty fair job of it.

 

[Gson]

Players play.. Tampa Bay played the Dodgers even while having the 27th of thirty teams payroll (lowest 10 % of the league)

'Spend more' is a popular refrain for "..I don't know what's wrong.. or how to fix it.."