His “we’re actually doing OK” statement is ambiguous - it could mean they are making money, it could mean they are breaking even, or it could mean they are losing less on a yearly basis than they had in the past. I think the latter two are more reasonable options given what facts are available to the fans.

Based on the information available to us, the best supported view is that Moores is NOT directly making money on the team on a yearly basis. I don’t think he expects to do so. He would make substantial money if he sold the team, but my current understanding is that he has no intent to do so and wants to keep it in his family when he is gone.

However, you can always argue that Moores is indirectly making money off the team from the investments that his companies have made in the surrounding redevelopment zone. However, he seems to be wasting at least some of his money on the Saudi- and other Arab dictator–coddling Carter Center, but that is another story entirely.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

No fuzzy math there, and none of the known shenanigans recognized by critics like the late Doug Pappas and the still going critic Andrew Zimbalist, both of whose work I have read and value greatly.

I already conceded that we don’t know anything about Padres’ claimed depreciation and amortization. I disregarded those entirely. I didn’t even make a deduction for taxes. So, if you accept the Forbes numbers, which I am willing to do, you still get a break even operation for the Padres because of the very real interest they pay, which is not included in Forbes “Operating Income” numbers.

Re 132, 133. Agree wholeheartedly. It would be nice if we had complete access to the Padres’ books, because the facts currently available haven’t convinced cynics like TW. We would probably see something similar to what I have posited, although if the Padres wanted to, they could probably claim substantial “losses” through appreciated depreciation and/or amortization of the stadium and other assets and/or recharacterization of liabilities. That is what Paul Beeston really means when he says you can turn a 4 million profit into a 12 million loss. Beeston also means things that teams like the Yankees do - funnel profits out of the team through an interested party transaction with their local media netword, owned - voila - by the Yankees. Teams like the Yankees do that because (a) they can; (b) to make a profit look like a loss; and (c) - most important, to reduce their revenue sharing contribution.

Also, I wish it made a day to day difference that the Padres’ franchise has appreciated in value, but it doesn’t. That only matters to the owner if/when that owner sells the team. Baseball also changes its team accounting/fiscal responsibility rules so that a team now has to have enough EBITDA to service its actual debt; it doesn’t consider the old debt/equity ratio any more. If it did do the latter, then the equity appreciation of the franchise could matter more for day to day operations. Since it does the former, the Padres are further handicapped relative to other teams - they have actual substantial stadium debt, which Forbes also recognizes.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

At the amateur level you you might lose some Venezuelan kid to the Red Sox for 100,000. Obviously some will be more, but many will be much less. In the draft you’re passing on players who want 1.5 million and the slot is 1.2. At the big league level you’re missing out on ManRam by 20 million.

Or look at it this way: Had the Padres been as aggressive in the amateur market as the Red Sox just during the Petco era, we’d have a farm system that would allow us to trade for an available player. And it would have cost us 10-12 million over that period more than we spent. Say 16 to make it easier, 4 million per, 4 seasons. That gets you 3 or 4 arms in the high minors so you don’t have Boomer in the rotation. It lets you put a great offer on the table if the Marlins decide to move Cabrera.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

#136: Yes, I’ve oversimplified matters, but the money those organizations have is a primary driver in how much they are willing/able to spend in all areas.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Good point about redevelopment and the other condos. Back in ‘04 (right before Opening Day at Petco) Slate had an article on ballparks as a catalyst for redevelopment, citing Petco as the one example of a ballpark that did what it was advertised to do - revitalize a blighted neighborhood. Here’s the link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2098064/

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

131: GY, you know it’s not that simple. The Red Sox investment in the minors compared to the Padres is a few million dollars per year. You get far more bang for every buck signing amateurs. A big amateur signing budget for any team would be 10M. The same budget for a team playing it safe and not playing hard in the int’l market would be 5 million. It’s where the smaller teams can really close the gaps. With amateurs, 5 million can get you a couple of premium US picks and a couple of high-end international talents. In the pros it gets you a journeyman corner OF.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)