I’m with Dave on this one, and I’m disappointed that the anti-Dave accountants kept using the term “budget” to talk about the amount of money they are able/willing to pay out this year. (The term “cash-flow statement” would probably have installed more credibility.)

A cash flow statement has little to do with a budget.

Re-signing Bedard to a one year incentive laden deal could be just that. If it works and he stays healthy the M’s have a 1-2-3 of Hernandez/Lee/Bedard for a season

No, they’d have a 1-2 of Hernandez/Lee for half a season and then a 1-2-3 of Hernandex/Lee/Bedard for the second half of the season. If the surgery is successful and he recovers fully, of course.

I’m with Dave on this one, and I’m disappointed that the anti-Dave accountants kept using the term “budget” to talk about the amount of money they are able/willing to pay out this year. (The term “cash-flow statement” would probably have installed more credibility.)

Not letting anyone know what your budget is gives you a competitive advantage. I don’t blame Jack one bit.

This is true, to an extent, but I think the secrecy regarding the budget goes hand in hand with the secrecy regarding how much money the team makes. And frankly, I think it’s mostly bullshit. This has very little to do with Jack Z, but I think major league baseball teams owe their fans a lot more disclosure than they currently give regarding the money they’re making. This is especially true in a case, such as Seattle, where the taxpayers funded the capital expenses of the team to the tune of $300+ million, in the form of a new stadium.

If this were a traditional “business” and we as fans were just “customers” then maybe that wouldn’t be true. But fans are more than just customers, in my view.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

And from a business perspective, it’s still not what it could be. Here’s one measure: last year the M’s spent the 5th most in payroll to put butts in seats: $45.05 in payroll per spectator, on par with the Mets and more than any other team save the Yankees, Tigers, Braves, and Indians. The Phillies spent just $32.55 per spectator; the Red Sox (even with their huge payroll and tiny stadium) $39.81. The 2009 M’s were at least much better than the 2008 version which spent over $50 per spectator, the most in baseball that year (and $2 more than even the 2008 Yankees) — that’s what a bloated payroll and 100+ losses will do to you. But it’s also a far cry from years past: as recently as 2004 they were spending just $27 in payroll per spectator, 12th among all the teams and in the same range as the Royals and Twins. (Those spectacular playoff-bound 2001 and 2002 M’s teams were way down around 24th or 25th.)

Assuming last year’s improvement on the field and the excitement around the team this offseason translates into more ticket sales, and the team wins enough in the early going to sustain the interest, they should do much better in 2010. But that improvement gets eaten up quickly if they’re handing out $10M to every Tom, Ben, and Jerod they can put their hands on.

Not letting anyone know what your budget is gives you a competitive advantage. I don’t blame Jack one bit.

Yeah, that was the impression I got from his non-answer at the Benaroya meet-up: there’s no upside to letting everyone know how much money he has left to spend, even in the most general terms. He wants the agents to think he has almost nothing left to pay their clients; he wants the Angels and Rangers to think that he can out-bid them for anybody. And he certainly doesn’t want to be on the hook for any “official” number when the stadium authority, local/state officials, or MLB come around to calculate taxes, revenue sharing, and so on (the team has people to supply the appropriate numbers to each of those groups — and if you think the discussion here was eye-glazing….)