Thursday, August 29, 2013

Now this is just getting silly

Dan Alexander, the guy at Forbes who wrote the piece that Maury Brown eviscerated this morning has written a rebuttal to Maury Brown.

What is the main point of the rebuttal to the rebuttal?

Depends on how you count.

Seriously. Read it if you want, or if you're like me and have Tired Head about it (likely what the Astros want, anyway), then just...forget it. 


maroonedTexan said...

The fact that his first count was over $30 million off doesn't give me much faith in his conclusions.

Anonymous said...

how can you call a tv deal lucrative when its not on many tvs and is losing money?

The Batguy said...

From an accounting perspective, Alexander is pretty close to reality with his explanations here (not including the actual $$, just the differences between types of profitability). Companies I've worked for (I'm an accountant by trade) have used either EBIT or EBITDA as their bottom-line. In either of those instances, it does appear that the Astros likely will make a profit this year, though a small one.

What will probably be a loss this year, though, is the company cash flow. While some may choose to look at a number that excludes things like interest, those are very real expenditures. Just as I could turn a profit into a loss depending on the way I present the numbers, I can show a company that's losing money as a profitable one, and vice versa.

It does, indeed, depend on how you count. I agree with maroonedTexan above, Alexander's substantial back-tracking of his original numbers gives me no faith in any of his figures.

All that said, I obviously don't have access to the teams financials, and neither does anyone else speculating about this. The only people who truly know are the Astros, and they'll never say.

Anonymous said...

Neither of the point-counter point articles can be verified. Both are necessarily vague, with one author going out on a limb to make a point, and another being just as vague to beat down the first author.

However, it strains believability that with this small a payroll, the operating profit isn't substantial. That profit is likely being used to pay debt at an accelerated pace. Whether that is good or bad is a value judgement.

AGirlintheSouth said...

Here's my thought - one of the authors is an expert in the business of baseball. One of the authors didn't even know to include salary of a DFA's player in the remaining costs. I'll believe the guy who knows the business over the intern, I mean, other guy, any day.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess it is easier to believe a guy when he says what you want to hear. I don't remember people praising Brown for his intelligence when he claimed ad naseum that Crane wasn't being coerced to move to the AL.

Brown is a hack, just as much as the other guy. People will believe what suits them.

AGirlintheSouth said...

Frankly, I don't give a damn who is right. It does not matter one bit in my life whether the Astros are making money or not. In fact, I think the only people that it really should matter to are employed or own the organization. Otherwise, what difference does it make to us? The FO has a plan and they're following that plan, so revenues won't affect signings until they get to the part of the plan where that is applicable. I just tend to believe the person who actually understands the rules of the game ahead of the guy who doesn't, but neither of them "suits me" since I don't give a rat's ass.