Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Holy Hot Dog, Batman Beans the Pirates
Actor Michael Keaton, famous for playing the Caped Crusader, in a serious breach of etiquette, scolded his host while still in the host’s home. His gaffe? As an honored guest invited to throw out the first pitch at the Pirates home opener, he leveled criticism at Pirates’ owners for not spending enough money to field a more competitive team and that it is disrespectful to fans to keep offering a poor quality product. Predictably, his comments have caused quite a stir.
But, here’s the real issue. Was Keaton’s premise correct? Logic says it is not. Why would the Pirates opt to spend significantly more money, say $10 million-- most of which would have to come from investors rather than ballpark related revenues-- when that would still leave them as the lowest payroll team in their own division and $30 - 40 millions below the Cubs, Cardinals, and Astros? And would 10 million more produce a pennant winning team, or even a 0.500 winning record? Unlikely. And even if the team managed to close in on a winning season for the first time in 14 years, it is highly improbable that attendance would rise enough to produce $10 million more in revenue.
So, here we are six years into play at the new ballpark, which, the team and its civic and corporate boosters promised was the magic ingredient needed to turn the Pirates into a competitive team. As yet, evidence that a competitive team has been developed is very sparse indeed. And while modesty should prevent our saying it, we cannot resist the opportunity to remind those folks that the Institute warned that the hype and promises were unlikely to be matched by reality. No revenue sharing and no effective salary cap still make also-rans out of the smaller market teams. It was true then and it is true now.
But Keaton’s premise is wrong on another score as well. Why would the Pirates owners feel compelled to spend more money to attract fans when attendance seems to be holding fairly steady at an acceptable level as it is? This is a business after all and the owners are simply operating in a way to protect their investment and get the most return-- or the least loss--they can. Winning is a luxury they are simply not willing to bankroll.
But, here’s the real issue. Was Keaton’s premise correct? Logic says it is not. Why would the Pirates opt to spend significantly more money, say $10 million-- most of which would have to come from investors rather than ballpark related revenues-- when that would still leave them as the lowest payroll team in their own division and $30 - 40 millions below the Cubs, Cardinals, and Astros? And would 10 million more produce a pennant winning team, or even a 0.500 winning record? Unlikely. And even if the team managed to close in on a winning season for the first time in 14 years, it is highly improbable that attendance would rise enough to produce $10 million more in revenue.
So, here we are six years into play at the new ballpark, which, the team and its civic and corporate boosters promised was the magic ingredient needed to turn the Pirates into a competitive team. As yet, evidence that a competitive team has been developed is very sparse indeed. And while modesty should prevent our saying it, we cannot resist the opportunity to remind those folks that the Institute warned that the hype and promises were unlikely to be matched by reality. No revenue sharing and no effective salary cap still make also-rans out of the smaller market teams. It was true then and it is true now.
But Keaton’s premise is wrong on another score as well. Why would the Pirates owners feel compelled to spend more money to attract fans when attendance seems to be holding fairly steady at an acceptable level as it is? This is a business after all and the owners are simply operating in a way to protect their investment and get the most return-- or the least loss--they can. Winning is a luxury they are simply not willing to bankroll.
