Gotta stop blaming hockey for the Jays' payroll issues

[Dick_Pole]

I posted most of this content in the Utley thread in response to a poster who used the NHL contract as an excuse for the Jays' payroll problems but it's not that topical so I figured I would make a new thread.

 

I'm like a broken record occasionally dispersing this information on this board, but the payroll constraints have 99% to do with how Rogers is doing overall and maybe 1% to do with hockey. At the time of the Marlins trade, some genius in the company probably forecasted 5% or more growth on their wireless and cable businesses. Then they had to re-rate all their US roaming plans in May 2013 which was a gold mine for them and their stock price tanked. I'm sure one of the first things they did when that happened was pull any increase to the Jays' payroll off the table. Look at the stock price chart comparing to the SPY (S&P ETF - a general market indicator).

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RCI+Interactive#{%22range%22%3A%222y%22%2C%22scale%22%3A%22linear%22%2C%22comparisons%22%3A{%22SPY%22%3A{%22color%22%3A%22%23cc0000%22%2C%22weight%22%3A1}}}

 

Rogers' stock price was $45 when the Marlins and Dickey trades happened in Dec 2012. Now it's $38 but keep in mind that during that time the stock market in general has gone up 50% so the drop looks even worse in comparison. If Rogers' stock was at $55 or something and the business was doing well, the payroll would probably be $200 million with an inefficiently-built playoff team. It would have nothing to do with the hockey contract.

 

The hockey contract would be a cash drain but not an EBITDA drain because it's accounted for differently on the books. Player salaries are expensed and incurred within the same year so that's a lever that can be used to improve cash position and profits in-year which is what Rogers wants in order to save the stock price and save executive bonuses for 2015 (2014 is already a goner for them).

[BTS]

I don't think I've seen a single respectable poster blame hockey for anything payroll-related.

[RealAccountant]

Jays current payroll is more than enough to create a successful.franchise

 

The fact that they haven't is on management and not ownership

[Dick_Pole]

I don't think I've seen a single respectable poster blame hockey for anything payroll-related.

 

And yet I've seen the same thing come up over and over again lol.

[Dick_Pole]

Jays current payroll is more than enough to create a successful.franchise

 

The fact that they haven't is on management and not ownership

 

Of course it is. And AA should have spent wisely. But like I said some idiot at Rogers probably forecasted rosy skies forever and said sure go ahead and spend with the promise of much more money to come. Just make it a winner as quickly as possible. Both ownership and the Jays brass are at fault equally, not one over the other imo.

[reedjohnsonfan]

Jays current payroll is more than enough to create a successful.franchise

 

The fact that they haven't is on management and not ownership

 

We don't have enough info to tell. One year they just suddenly go crazy and spend tons, and then do nothing. Huge spending sprees are totally pointless if you're not willing to improve the team afterwards. Maybe Rogers told AA to increase spending, and then put a stop to it?

[KingKat]

I don't think I've seen a single respectable poster blame hockey for anything payroll-related.

 

I've made the link but that was before the more complete financial reports came out. Now I blame NextIssue.

[kgm1]

After projected Arb. awards the Jays have the 8th highest payroll in baseball. Of the 8 , 5 made the playoffs. Only the Jays, Red Sox, and Yankees failed. Certainly the 8th highest payroll is plenty to get to October. I think it is a given Rogers forced the increase in payroll and then failed to follow thru in 2013 but we will never know if the 140 was always the max and it was AA,s failure or if he was told it would still go up after the deals.

 

This is the year AA has no excuses. He has all the tools to construct a roster that plays in October if he has the projected 20 mil left to spend. He has a farm system that has talent to deal.

 

I will say the one thing AA has done is sign talent. I suspect the farm barring dilution due to trades will rank in the top ten.

[wardhenke1]

• Could Rogers fund the Blue Jays for $250m right now if they chose to? Yes.

 

• Would it make sense to given the current state of the team and the last two years 'accomplishments'? No.

 

• Is hockey now a serious focus of the company in terms of sporting content? Yes.

 

• Would it be fair to say given the expansion of content, budget and personnel that hockey has now supplanted the Blue Jays in the minds of many responsible Rogers executives? It's not an unreasonable speculation.

 

• Could this mean that there is less focus in time, commitment and money available to the Blue Jays organization going forward? It's not impossible.

 

Nobody would say that because Rogers spent a fortune on hockey coverage that somehow they're now 'broke' or unable to find the money to spend on the Jays; that is clearly ridiculous. The question is given the shift in focus to hockey, would Rogers really want to fork more over to the Jays? $5.232bn is a significant statement of intent for any company after all in terms of its priorities for the future.

[Dick_Pole]

Moogy, you have to stop pretending that you know things. Your long-winded arguments with big words might scare some people away from calling your bluffs. Not this time. I work for a competitor to Rogers for several years now, and judging from my salary, promotions and job performance reviews, I'm pretty damn good at it. I have seen many asinine, short-sighted and last-minute decisions made in order to hit a budget target over the years. They cross division lines. If one division is struggling, the others have to pick up the slack. A lot of it is also impacted by company turnover in the higher ranks. Somebody leaves or gets canned and their pet project dies with them and becomes "EBITDA improvement opportunities" for the next guy.

 

The stock price to Jays' budget argument was a simplified one. It was meant to be as such because not everybody can be as smart as you think you are, nor can they spend a lot of time deep-diving into the reasons why the attitude of the Jays' brass suddenly changed once the calendar turned over to 2013. A lot of that could be blamed on performance. I'm sure 73-89 was not part of the 2013 forecast. But desperation on the part of Rogers' leadership to turn the ship around on net income and therefore the impact on stock price is another good reason. Perhaps the business case for spending on baseball players wasn't as good as projected two years ago.

[Deadpool]

I've made the link but that was before the more complete financial reports came out. Now I blame NextIssue.

 

f*** NextIssue, and the one confused old grandmother who bought it for her 10 year old granddaughter...