Lincoln's Math
I have been talking about the M's budget for some time now. My main questions have centered around when are the M's going to spend some money, and will they apply it to next year.
The Times article is so full of crap I can't decide what is worse- that Lincoln said it, or that the Times printed it.
I know Derek at USS Mariner essentially summed it up, but I cannot believe the gall of Lincoln. How stupid does he think we are? And Bob Finnigan- how can you write this?
Please Bob, write a follow up article. It's sort of like fact-checking an article; here's what you do. Get a piece of paper, a pencil and a calculator. Then add up the numbers. When you do, you might think of a few more questions for Howard.
Let's keep this real simple.
Keep thinking about salary added since opening day, because you're going to have a hard time doing so. Sure the M's have called up a bunch of prospects making the MLB minimum, but they also got rid of Garcia.
Since opening day, the M's haven't added any significant payroll, so where's the $13 million?? You had to pay Jarvis anyway, you have to pay Aurilia anyway, you have to pay Olerud anyway. None of those are ADDITIONAL costs.
As I have stated before, the M's are on the way to record profits this year.
Because they are not adding any salary, and attendance will not drop enough to make up the $13 million or so they are under budget, the M's will simply pocket the rest!!
From the article:
Can that savings be added to next year's payroll budget? Apparently not, according to Lincoln. "It doesn't work that way," he said. "You close the books on one year and turn the page."
Actually Howard, it can. There is no rule that prevents you from applying your huge profit from this year and applying it to next. The only thing preventing it is your desire to pocket the money.
Just watch. Forbes will report next year on record profits for '04.
I have been talking about the M's budget for some time now. My main questions have centered around when are the M's going to spend some money, and will they apply it to next year.
The Times article is so full of crap I can't decide what is worse- that Lincoln said it, or that the Times printed it.
I know Derek at USS Mariner essentially summed it up, but I cannot believe the gall of Lincoln. How stupid does he think we are? And Bob Finnigan- how can you write this?
Please Bob, write a follow up article. It's sort of like fact-checking an article; here's what you do. Get a piece of paper, a pencil and a calculator. Then add up the numbers. When you do, you might think of a few more questions for Howard.
Let's keep this real simple.
- M's budget for '04 is $95 million
- M's open season with roughly $82 million payroll ( USA today
- M's budget at start of season includes Jarvis, Davis, Garcia etc...
- Now think of salary added since opening day. Cabrera? Nope, included.
Keep thinking about salary added since opening day, because you're going to have a hard time doing so. Sure the M's have called up a bunch of prospects making the MLB minimum, but they also got rid of Garcia.
Since opening day, the M's haven't added any significant payroll, so where's the $13 million?? You had to pay Jarvis anyway, you have to pay Aurilia anyway, you have to pay Olerud anyway. None of those are ADDITIONAL costs.
As I have stated before, the M's are on the way to record profits this year.
Because they are not adding any salary, and attendance will not drop enough to make up the $13 million or so they are under budget, the M's will simply pocket the rest!!
From the article:
Can that savings be added to next year's payroll budget? Apparently not, according to Lincoln. "It doesn't work that way," he said. "You close the books on one year and turn the page."
Actually Howard, it can. There is no rule that prevents you from applying your huge profit from this year and applying it to next. The only thing preventing it is your desire to pocket the money.
Just watch. Forbes will report next year on record profits for '04.
posted by Tom at
5:19 PM
