Photo

Orioles were 4th-most profitable team last year according to Forbes


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 12:32 PM

https://twitter.com/...944455578517504

 

Top 5 MLB team values per Forbes:

Yankees:$7.1 billion
Dodgers:$4.8
RedSox:$4.5
Cubs:$4.1
SFGiants:$3.7
 
Top 5 profits(2022)
Mariners:$83.8M
SFGiants:$74.9
RedSox:$71.6
Orioles:$64.7
A's:$62.2
 
Top 5 losses
Mets:$138.5M
Padres:$55.2
WhiteSox:$53.4
BlueJays:$33.7
Twins:$30.3

 


she/her


#2 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 12:35 PM

$65M in profit is a lot less than I would've guessed.  Though I assume this is just the Orioles profits, and not inclusive of MASN profits.


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#3 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 23 March 2023 - 12:40 PM

The actual profit is almost assuredly much much higher.

#4 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,720 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 12:57 PM

$65M in profit is a lot less than I would've guessed.  Though I assume this is just the Orioles profits, and not inclusive of MASN profits.


Definitely not inclusive of MASN.



#5 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,311 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 12:57 PM

Im willing to say they could add that 64 mil to the payroll and be fine on the rest. I dont need them to be in that loss column, though I dont disagree that those teams didnt lose that much. So add 64 mil to last years payroll and where we at? 100 mil- 110? Hopefully Angelos is willing to take it there annually. Thats still small market or bottom 1/3 of payroll league wide

#6 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:00 PM

Im willing to say they could add that 64 mil to the payroll and be fine on the rest. I dont need them to be in that loss column, though I dont disagree that those teams didnt lose that much. So add 64 mil to last years payroll and where we at? 100 mil- 110? Hopefully Angelos is willing to take it there annually. Thats still small market or bottom 1/3 of payroll league wide

 

Chris Bassitt and Jose Abreu were both under 64 million total just to name two of note 


she/her


#7 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,311 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:03 PM


Chris Bassitt and Jose Abreu were both under 64 million total just to name two of note

And we made a legit offer to Bassitt so..... Advocating for giving him whatever he wants when payroll will get tighter is foolish. We are past this though. Myself and at least 1 other here believe the Os will add to the payroll in season.

#8 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:04 PM

Everyone between under 64 million and 20 million this year
 
Chris Bassitt $63.00M
José Abreu $58.50M
Robert Suarez $46.00M
Mitch Haniger $43.50M
Anthony Rizzo $40.00M
Zach Eflin $40.00M
Tyler Anderson $39.00M
Michael Conforto $36.00M
Rafael Montero $34.50M
Nathan Eovaldi $34.00M
Josh Bell $33.00M
Taylor Rogers $33.00M
Kenley Jansen $32.00M
Christian Vázquez $30.00M
José Quintana $26.00M
Michael Wacha $26.00M
Nick Martinez $26.00M
Ross Stripling $25.00M
Sean Manaea $25.00M
Andrew Heaney $25.00M
Justin Turner $21.70M

she/her


#9 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,311 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:07 PM

Just sign some old guys Mike. Thats what the fans want. Doesnt matter that that could hinder any future payroll additions in season or in future offseasons. Doesnt matter that some of these guys have bad trends and arent good bets. Just sign someone to do it. Pray that they are better than the internal options

#10 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,876 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:11 PM

Just a reminder that Forbes kind of sucks.


  • BaltBird 24 likes this

#11 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:11 PM

Im willing to say they could add that 64 mil to the payroll and be fine on the rest. I dont need them to be in that loss column, though I dont disagree that those teams didnt lose that much. So add 64 mil to last years payroll and where we at? 100 mil- 110? Hopefully Angelos is willing to take it there annually. Thats still small market or bottom 1/3 of payroll league wide

 

They were around $45M last year but that's only with 1/3 of Davis' $17M salary which he agreed to spread of '22-24 when he retired.



#12 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:25 PM

And we made a legit offer to Bassitt so..... Advocating for giving him whatever he wants when payroll will get tighter is foolish. We are past this though. Myself and at least 1 other here believe the Os will add to the payroll in season.

 

Apologies if this was already an argument but...legit according to who? Was there a Heyman, Rosenthal, etc who said the Orioles were serious contenders for him? 


  • You Play to Win the Game and DuffMan like this

she/her


#13 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 01:52 PM

Just sign some old guys Mike. Thats what the fans want. Doesnt matter that that could hinder any future payroll additions in season or in future offseasons. Doesnt matter that some of these guys have bad trends and arent good bets. Just sign someone to do it. Pray that they are better than the internal options

 

Yep, certainly fair and not utterly bs to say that everybody who wanted to see some external talent added only wanted it because we were thirsty for the action and not because we thought it was a good use of more than ample resources for the present and future.


  • You Play to Win the Game, mweb08, BSLRoseKatz and 1 other like this

#14 BSLJamieSieck

BSLJamieSieck

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,704 posts
  • LocationHampstead, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 02:06 PM

As much as many have lamented our lack of any big moves this off season, I will be more upset if we don't attempt to extend some of our homegrown guys. I think we'd end up with better bang for our buck by making the move to lock up our own guys early, as opposed to paying 18-20 mill per for a middle of the rotation starter. 

 

So whereas I understand being disappointed that we didn't make any real needle moving acquisitions this winter, if we keep going year to year with our core, only to see them all get traded as their arb years wane, that's where I will be ready to get out the pitchfork.


@primetime667083

 

"Just remember, whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right." -Stewie Griffin


#15 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 23 March 2023 - 02:20 PM

Yeah I don't think ownership or the front office deserves any benefit of the doubt for spending until we get some sort of internal spending at the very least


  • You Play to Win the Game, DuffMan and BSLJamieSieck like this

she/her


#16 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,278 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 23 March 2023 - 05:09 PM

Here's Forbes' full list. They rank the Orioles 18th in valuation at $1.7B. Based on John's remark at the infamous MLK press conference that the family owned 70% of the franchise, that would put their share at about $1.19B.

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=1ee22c016501



#17 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,311 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 05:17 PM


Yep, certainly fair and not utterly bs to say that everybody who wanted to see some external talent added only wanted it because we were thirsty for the action and not because we thought it was a good use of more than ample resources for the present and future.

The problem isnt specific guys if you wanted speicific guys. Some of these FAs will have solid years. A few. And what will we hear. It wont be about Bassitt if hes struggling. Wont be about Abreu if he's struggling. Itll be we coulda had Josh Bell for this. We shoulda signed Tyler Anderson for that. Guys no one really talked about but because they are the ones having the good years we will hear how we missed out

#18 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,278 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 23 March 2023 - 05:23 PM

We swung and missed >>>>>> We didn't even step to the plate


  • You Play to Win the Game and BSLSteveBirrer like this

#19 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 23 March 2023 - 06:02 PM

The problem isnt specific guys if you wanted speicific guys. Some of these FAs will have solid years. A few. And what will we hear. It wont be about Bassitt if hes struggling. Wont be about Abreu if he's struggling. Itll be we coulda had Josh Bell for this. We shoulda signed Tyler Anderson for that. Guys no one really talked about but because they are the ones having the good years we will hear how we missed out


That's kinda like guys no one ever really talked about getting signed and then people talking them up after their favorite GM landed them. Good thing that didn't happen here.
  • You Play to Win the Game likes this

#20 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,013 posts

Posted 23 March 2023 - 06:11 PM


Just a reminder that Forbes kind of sucks.


...and so does the Angelos family, soooo...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=