Moore not done...

[Diesel]

Home / Sports / Baseball / Professional Baseball / Major League Baseball / San Diego Padres

PADRES NOTES: Moores interested in NBA's Atlanta Hawks

By DAN HAYES dhayes@nctimes.com | Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:01 pm | No Comments Posted | Print

SAN DIEGO ---- Padres co-owner John Moores is in the market to purchase the Atlanta Hawks, though his window of exclusivity has expired, the Associated Press reported.

Moores and CEO Jeff Moorad each own roughly a 50 percent stake in the Padres. Moores has served as chairman of the Padres since buying the club on Dec. 21, 1994.

Moores didn't respond to multiple requests for comment Tuesday, but he told the AP on Monday that "the interest (in the Hawks) continues. I don't think I can say anything beyond that."

Moorad purchased 50 percent of the Padres from Moores in two payments, beginning with a 33 percent installment in March 2009. Moorad said he has 3 1/2 more years to purchase the remaining 50 percent.

"Our intent generally is to get something done sooner than that, but there are no firm plans at the point to do anything," Moorad said.

[willthepureshooter]

Going off how this guy treated the Padres when he had them, I'm all for ASG not selling. I wonder if they could add him as an owner in the group..? Well, it depends on how big of a ego Moore has developed. I seriously doubt that he would join the ASG but its definately worth seeking.

[sturt]

I think too many of you guys stare at specific trees and fail to see the forest... for a smaller market team that had had no real post-season success prior to his ownership, the record actually suggests Moores was a decent owner.

[Plainview1981]

Outside of that one year, I can't remember the Pads doing anything. They're a mediocre franchise and if ownership cares abut this franchise they will not sell to someone like this guy. The Padres have been to the playoffs 5 times since 1980... Uh... no. No sale.

[NJHAWK]

Is that the year they got to the series when Kaminitti and all those avr players all roided up .

[DJlaysitup]

Outside of that one year, I can't remember the Pads doing anything. They're a mediocre franchise and if ownership cares abut this franchise they will not sell to someone like this guy. The Padres have been to the playoffs 5 times since 1980... Uh... no. No sale.

Agreed Hot...plus...baseball is a weird game as far as wins and losses go. The best triple A team could probably compete for a playoff spot in a weak MLB division. Baseball owners are probably the most self righteous and also the most ignorant owners of any professional sport.

[Devon]

I disagree... As somebody who went to a TON of Padres' games when I was growing up the team actually IMPROVED under Moores' ownership and they got a sparkling new stadium; PETCO is freaking BEAUTIFUL when it comes to new stadium builds and very "fan-friendly"... You've got to understand that San Diego is NOT Los Angeles (even though remotely close in proximity); it's a beautiful area but lacks the pulling power of it's big brother up the 5. I think Moores' has actually done well in an environment that doesn't necessarily foster high attendance #'s (generally older demographic, high # of Immigrant populations, not really a sports town, etc)

Where he went wrong is in personnel decisions; one key one in particular. Someone, anyone, tell me why Tony Gwynn isn't managing the Padres'?

[DrReality]

Don't see this guy as a solution to what is ailing us. Worst case is he comes in and becomes part owner and another squabble ensues with the owners.

[AHF]

The biggest influence an owner has is in setting a budget for the team. San Diego is among the dregs of the league:

2011 - 27th highest payroll

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

2010 - 29th highest payroll

2009 - 29th highest payroll

2008 - 19th highest payroll

2007 - 24th highest payroll

2006 - 17th highest payroll

2005 - 17th highest payroll

2004 - 17th highest payroll

2003 - 27th highest payroll

2002 - 26th highest payroll

2001 - 25th highest payroll

They have not been league average once in the last decade. The Hawks are well above league average this year.

The W/L success of a team on a reduced payroll is the mark of a good general manager - not the mark of a good owner.

Nothing about Moore is encouraging to me.

[sturt]

The biggest influence an owner has is in setting a budget for the team. San Diego is among the dregs of the league:

2011 - 27th highest payroll

http://content.usato...b/salaries/team

2010 - 29th highest payroll

2009 - 29th highest payroll

2008 - 19th highest payroll

2007 - 24th highest payroll

2006 - 17th highest payroll

2005 - 17th highest payroll

2004 - 17th highest payroll

2003 - 27th highest payroll

2002 - 26th highest payroll

2001 - 25th highest payroll

They have not been league average once in the last decade. The Hawks are well above league average this year.

The W/L success of a team on a reduced payroll is the mark of a good general manager - not the mark of a good owner.

Nothing about Moore is encouraging to me.

Preface: Above, I've bolded the seasons that Moores owned the team prior to putting it up for sale due to his divorce... and here are the seasons he owned the Padres prior to that (having bought the team in Dec 2004):

2000 - 16th highest payroll

1999 - 17th highest payroll

1998 - 14th highest payroll

1997 - 18th highest payroll

1996 - 18th highest payroll

1995 - 22nd highest payroll

===

AHF, I respectfully disagree, and here's why...

First, let's accept for the moment your opinion that an owner is to be measured exclusively on the basis of his payroll.

The oversight of your simple payroll ranking analysis is that it assumes that payroll is simply a matter of what an owner arbitrarily wants to shell out... but that assumption fails to consider that payroll is also substantially influenced, no matter what the sport and what group of cities are in the league... by market size and nearby competition... both of which influence attendance as well as media (i.e., advertising revenues). So, payroll ultimately is a reflection on a year-to-year basis of the previous year's attendance, off-season season ticket sales, and whatever reason there may or may not be for an expected increases/decreases in advertising revenues--a measurement not easily calculated since that would be the result of a formula that includes previous history of success on the field in combination with an estimation of fan enthusiasm (which, again, could be somewhat based on off-season season-ticket sales).

But let's look, at least, at what we can fairly easily surmise...

Regarding market size, there are 9 teams that are located in a metropolitan statistical area smaller than SD, and so, 20 teams that are located in an MSA larger than SD... and though several cities/MSAs including SD have grown, those rankings have been stable b/t 2000 and 2010.

Of the 13 years that he ran the team without encumbrance, his payroll compared to all other teams outperformed his MSA ranking compared to all other teams in 8 of those years.

When you correct that comparison to take into account that payroll is strongly influenced by attendance from the previous season, that says that on 9 of 13 occasions, Moores' payroll ranking exceeded the ranking of his market size.

How about the influence of the previous season's attendance?

For 1995, the payroll would have been largely established before he took full ownership, and for 2008, the divorce and impending sale of the team naturally gave cause to reduce payroll in the off-season. So, that focuses us on comparisons beginning with the increase or decrease of 1995 attendance over the previous season, and in light of that trend, whether there was also a congruent increase or decrease in payroll set for the 1996 season... and then, the same measure could be applied thereafter, through the year he put the team up for sale, 2008.

So, let's go to the data...

In that period, Moores' Padres experienced an increase in attendance on 5 occasions... and in the following season, on all 5 occasions, there was an increase in payroll.

Probably more impressive... in that period, Moores' Padres experienced a decrease in attendance on 8 occasions... and in the following season, 6 of those 8 occasions, there still was an increase in payroll.

Here's what I found one independent writer had to say about the circumstance of owning a baseball team in San Diego, CA...

The San Diego Padres Baseball Club L.P., headed by software millionaire John Moores, owns the San Diego Padres of the National League of Major League Baseball. Since its start as an expansion team, no major league team has had a worse winning percentage. A perennial last place club, the Padres have won just two National League championships and never achieved a World Championship during its history. The team has also been a consistent money loser, due in some part to the unique geography of its market. With desert to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, Los Angeles to the north with its highly popular Dodgers and American League Angels, the Padres have been forced to look to the south to Mexico to win new fans and generate the revenues necessary to make it competitive--and one day, perhaps, profitable....

[in 1990, Tom Werner] took over at a difficult time for baseball. Player salaries were escalating rapidly, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for small- and medium-sized market teams like the Padres to compete against the likes of the New York Yankees, New York Mets, and Los Angeles Dodgers, which received far more money in their radio and television contracts. San Diego tried to generate extra revenue by selling 50 home games on Cox Cable as a pay-per-view, but the team was limited in its choices given its location, surrounded by desert, water, and Dodger fans. The team began looking to Mexico for a much-needed source of revenues, but fans of the team south of border found it difficult to take in a game. Tickets were too expensive for the market, there were delays at the border, and group transportation was not available. The Padres would not make significant inroads into the Hispanic market until a new ownership team took charge.

The Werner group did not have the deep pockets necessary to subsidize the perennial money-losing Padres. In the summer of 1993 the club conducted what many called a fire sale, unloading all of its stars, with the exception of hometown hero Tony Gwynn. When it was over the Padres had slashed its payroll to $10.3 million, the lowest in the majors. The Padres also finished once again in last place, 43 games behind first place Atlanta. In December 1994 a group headed by Larry Lucchino and John Moores, the former supplying the baseball savvy and the latter the cash. bought the Padres. Moores was worth an estimated $400 million, a fortune he derived from BMC Software, which he founded in Houston in 1980. He would need that largesse to keep the Padres in business. In his first year as owner, the team lost $17 million, but a large portion of that money was the result of free agent spending, which at least gave the Padres' longsuffering fans some hope. They were soon given something even more tangible when in 1996 the team surprised everyone by eclipsing the Dodgers on the last day of the season to win the National League West title. They were soon dispatched by the St. Louis Cardinals in the playoffs, however.In tandem with improvement on the field, the Padres made strides at the gate, especially with Hispanic fans. The team hired a director of Hispanic Marketing and began addressing the problems Mexicans faced in attending Padres' games. In conjunction with Mexican Beer company Tecate, the Padres created the "Domingos Padres Con Tecata" program, which provided Mexican fans with a ticket and bus transportation to Sunday home games at a cost that was less than the regular price of a ticket. Moreover, the buses passed through the border at a special bus lane, eliminating the delays that had previously troubled fans. As a result of this program and better play on the field, the Padres saw their attendance double from 1.1 million in 1995 to 2.2 million in 1996.

But even two million in attendance was not sufficient to prevent the Padres from continuing to lose money. What the team needed in order to survive in San Diego were the revenue streams that came with a new ballpark. Moores publicly expressed that view in 1996 and a year later Mayor Susan Golding's task force charged with looking into the matter agreed with him. The city and the ball club now began to work together to develop a new baseball-only ballpark in downtown. In 1998 San Diego voters approved the creation of a 26-block redevelopment area to build a $400 million ballpark. It certainly didn't hurt that the Padres enjoyed their finest season, winning 98 regular season games, then beating the Houston Astros and Atlanta Braves before falling to the New York Yankees in the World Series. Nevertheless, the club still lost around $7 million, providing a further rationale for a new ballpark...

http://www.answers.c...seball-club-l-p

So anyhow, with regard to your stated opinion that, essentially, an owner is only as good as his willingness to sink his own money into the roster... there is clearly a strong case that Moores holds his own on that point once we dig deeper and take more variables into consideration than just the surface.

But I disagree with that that is the essential measure of an owner.

Yes, you want an owner who will spend money.

And yes, just as pertinently, you want an owner who has a history of hiring good people.

And after hiring them, letting them do what they're paid to do with minimal interference from the top.

Larry Lucchino, highly regarded exec today for the Red Sox, was his first team president; Kevin Towers was his first GM hire, an internal bump from scouting director, and that was one that proved over time to work our pretty well. And it was under his watch that Bruce Bochy got his first managerial gig.

Don't get me wrong... I'm sure there's a lot of wealthy people out there who'd make a better owner than John Moores. All I'm contending here is that, all things considered, we could do a LOT worse... and that, likely, currently we are doing just that.

Edited May 31, 2011 by sturt

[AHF]

If he is willing to foot a top 8 or higher bill every year (i.e., exceed the size of the #9 Atlanta media market) and look to hire smart management to run the team, I am all excited but the San Diego Padres have been a pretty poor franchise and if he is going to correlate his spending to Atlanta's subpar attendance numbers I don't want to see that happen. In the year Cuban bought the Mavericks their attendance was 75% of what it has been since he gave people a good reason to care. (600K in 1999-2000 when he purchased the team in January of 2000 and 800K+ since 2001-02).

http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html

What I really want is a rich owner who wants to be a winner - not one who is planning to use this to make his money.

You've raised some good points that make more less apprehensive of Moore but I still hold a healthy skepticism of someone who didn't spend enough to fund a median payroll in 12 of the 13 seasons he owned the Padres. I want an owner in competition with other teams to win a title and ready to spend to win like I think we will see from Mikhail Prokhorov.

[DeacKillsaDevil]

The biggest influence an owner has is in setting a budget for the team. San Diego is among the dregs of the league:

2011 - 27th highest payroll

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

2010 - 29th highest payroll

2009 - 29th highest payroll

2008 - 19th highest payroll

2007 - 24th highest payroll

2006 - 17th highest payroll

2005 - 17th highest payroll

2004 - 17th highest payroll

2003 - 27th highest payroll

2002 - 26th highest payroll

2001 - 25th highest payroll

They have not been league average once in the last decade. The Hawks are well above league average this year.

The W/L success of a team on a reduced payroll is the mark of a good general manager - not the mark of a good owner.

Nothing about Moore is encouraging to me.

My only problem looking at this is that too many people assume that an owner has a bottomless pit of money to fund a team and fail to realize all that goes into budgeting items like payroll. Also, baseball is a sport without a cap and most teams can't compete with the $ they throw around in NYC and Boston.

If he is willing to foot a top 8 or higher bill every year (i.e., exceed the size of the #9 Atlanta media market) and look to hire smart management to run the team, I am all excited but the San Diego Padres have been a pretty poor franchise and if he is going to correlate his spending to Atlanta's subpar attendance numbers I don't want to see that happen. In the year Cuban bought the Mavericks their attendance was 75% of what it has been since he gave people a good reason to care. (600K in 1999-2000 when he purchased the team in January of 2000 and 800K+ since 2001-02).

http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html

What I really want is a rich owner who wants to be a winner - not one who is planning to use this to make his money.

You've raised some good points that make more less apprehensive of Moore but I still hold a healthy skepticism of someone who didn't spend enough to fund a median payroll in 12 of the 13 seasons he owned the Padres. I want an owner in competition with other teams to win a title and ready to spend to win like I think we will see from Mikhail Prokhorov.

Maybe two such owners exist in all of sports. They all want to make money..even Prokhorov. They didn't get into a position to buy a team without making money.

[sturt]

If he is willing to foot a top 8 or higher bill every year (i.e., exceed the size of the #9 Atlanta media market) and look to hire smart management to run the team, I am all excited but the San Diego Padres have been a pretty poor franchise and if he is going to correlate his spending to Atlanta's subpar attendance numbers I don't want to see that happen. In the year Cuban bought the Mavericks their attendance was 75% of what it has been since he gave people a good reason to care. (600K in 1999-2000 when he purchased the team in January of 2000 and 800K+ since 2001-02).

http://www.proadvanc...diamarkets.html

Think of it this way.

The guy increased payroll 75% of the time when attendance dropped, and 100% of the time when attendance increased...

The implicit message would seem to be, "If they come, he will build it... and maybe even if they don't come."

What I really want is a rich owner who wants to be a winner - not one who is planning to use this to make his money.

(What Deac said... and...)

Those kinds of owners tend to want to be in the middle of every decision that is better made by a legitimate GM... I'll pass. I'm already a Cowboys fan, and see what that's gotten me? :suicide:

[sturt]

Sorry for the bump, but btw... missed this earlier...

If we're going by media market as AHF suggested, rather than MSA, Moores' record in San Diego becomes even more impressive... the SD MSA is #21 of 30 MLB teams, but the SD TV households ranking is #26 (!).

Translation: Previous to his divorce and putting the team up for sale, Moores ONLY ONCE (2003) had a payroll that ranked less than his media market ranking... and that was in the last year of Qualcomm Stadium... and on the other hand, payroll was as high as ten slots above media market ranking during his tenure.

Edited June 4, 2011 by sturt

[AHF]

I'm already a Cowboys fan, and see what that's gotten me? :suicide:

Last time I checked, three NFL championships over the last 20 years.

I'll take that for the Hawks.

[sturt]

Last time I checked, three NFL championships over the last 20 years.

I'll take that for the Hawks.

Many people give those to Jimmy rather than Jerry. For my part, I attribute the greatest part of the 90s run to the Herschel trade, and an overly eager Vikings GM who gave the Boys the benefit of about 10 extra players, most of them high draft picks.

I'm usually not one to ride owners, but Jerry's incompetence is just so very proven by now that there's no room for dispute. I'm just praying that Jason Garrett proves to have the steering wheel as was asserted at the presser when he was announced as permanent HC.

[AHF]

Many people give those to Jimmy rather than Jerry. For my part, I attribute the greatest part of the 90s run to the Herschel trade, and an overly eager Vikings GM who gave the Boys the benefit of about 10 extra players, most of them high draft picks.

I'm usually not one to ride owners, but Jerry's incompetence is just so very proven by now that there's no room for dispute. I'm just praying that Jason Garrett proves to have the steering wheel as was asserted at the presser when he was announced as permanent HC.

Oh, I'm no big Jerry fan but the fact is he has 3 championship rings and the Hawks have yet to make the conference title game, let alone get near a championship. Jerry is a troublesome meddler but he gives the resources to get it done when he gets the right people in charge.

[Seano]

Last time I checked, three NFL championships over the last 20 years.

I'll take that for the Hawks.

Well I'm a Cowboys fan too, so I can totally relate to what Sturt's talking about here. Jerry Jones is a meddler most supreme, and his meddling along with his belief that he's qualified to be an NFL GM have been much, much more harmful than helpful to the Cowboys over the years. And yeah, the three NFL titles within his first five years of owning the team were awesome, but that was much more the result of a perfect storm of fortuitous circumstance coming together than anything that Jerry Jones did. You had Jimmy Johnson acting as coach and GM, you had the Herschel Walker trade (or robbery), which stocked the Cowboys for years, and you also had an uncapped NFL, and partly the reason why the league did put in the cap was to break up the dynasties in Dallas and San Francisco. I mean Dallas had second stringers who were All Pros and Pro Bowlers, so the league decided to put a stop to that. So Jerry got really, really lucky straight off the bat, but since '96 we've won two playoff games in 15 years despite all the advantages and resources the Cowboys have at their disposal, and most Cowboys fans are far less than pleased with Jerry as an owner.

On the one hand he's an awesome owner, because he truly loves his team more than anything else and is more than willing to sink tons and tons of $$$$ into it, including building that palace of a stadium. But the flip-side of that is his damnable meddling and his massive ego, which leads him to think he's capable of making draft, free agent, and trade decisions himself while undercutting HOF level coaches in Johnson and Parcells, and that has just not worked out for us at all.

[AHF]

Well I'm a Cowboys fan too, so I can totally relate to what Sturt's talking about here. Jerry Jones is a meddler most supreme, and his meddling along with his belief that he's qualified to be an NFL GM have been much, much more harmful than helpful to the Cowboys over the years. And yeah, the three NFL titles within his first five years of owning the team were awesome, but that was much more the result of a perfect storm of fortuitous circumstance coming together than anything that Jerry Jones did. You had Jimmy Johnson acting as coach and GM, you had the Herschel Walker trade (or robbery), which stocked the Cowboys for years, and you also had an uncapped NFL, and partly the reason why the league did put in the cap was to break up the dynasties in Dallas and San Francisco. I mean Dallas had second stringers who were All Pros and Pro Bowlers, so the league decided to put a stop to that. So Jerry got really, really lucky straight off the bat, but since '96 we've won two playoff games in 15 years despite all the advantages and resources the Cowboys have at their disposal, and most Cowboys fans are far less than pleased with Jerry as an owner.

On the one hand he's an awesome owner, because he truly loves his team more than anything else and is more than willing to sink tons and tons of $$$$ into it, including building that palace of a stadium. But the flip-side of that is his damnable meddling and his massive ego, which leads him to think he's capable of making draft, free agent, and trade decisions himself while undercutting HOF level coaches in Johnson and Parcells, and that has just not worked out for us at all.

Obviously, the preference is to get a rich owner that hires top talent and lets them do their job. Again, I'm not a big Jerry Jones fan. Arthur Blank is a much better example - a guy who hires a GM and Coach and let's them work while he opens his checkbook and his only direct involvement is wining and dining the top FA targets.

I haven't seen a lot of big wins by the San Diego Padres either, just as a random example.

Looking to land an owner that is going to base their investment in the Hawks on the attendance isn't encouraging for me - look at our historical attendance rankings. Is the former owner of the Padres going to inspire more fans to attend? If not, why would I be encouraged by someone interested in a model that would result in less spending than we currently have?

[Seano]

Where did we rank attendance-wise in the Dominique years, I wonder?

I'm thinking that maybe if you give people a real reason to come out and see the games, then they will? But I don't know. It's Atlanta, and attendance for the Hawks and especially Braves over the years just kind of leaves me scratching my head. I don't know how there could be empty seats in the playoffs when you've got an outstanding team and the opportunity to see Hall of Famers like Maddux and Glavine and Smoltz pitching, but back in the mid '90s there were empty seats and quite a few of them. I will never understand how that could be, especially when baseball tickets are so comparatively cheap.