Is Ownership Cheap?

There seems to be a general sentiment growing among a portion of the fanbase that Rogers is a cheap ownership.  The thought seems to be that Toronto is a big market, and payroll has been below average (both true), ergo ownership is cheap.  This is exasperated by the comments made by Beeston that the team could handle a $120-M payroll when it makes sense to spend.  Given the availability of a big bat in Fielder, and the apparent lukewarm interest on the part of the Jays, it’s a logical conclusion to make.  But is it a fair assessment?

Now, I won’t get into the wisdom of Beeston mentioning a specific salary figure without a timeframe, and I’m going to assume that the lack of interest in Fielder is genuine (if they did plan on signing him, they’d use the same tactic; you don’t negotiate with Boras by showing him your open wallet and declaring publicly that you’ll do whatever it takes to sign his client).

I took a look at three factors: Team quality (ranked by winning percentage), fan support (ranked by attendance per game) and financial commitment (ranked by payroll).  While not perfect, these numbers do provide some insight.  Since Rogers took over the team (2001-present) the Jays have had an average rank of 8.1 in winning percentage, and 8.5 in payroll – overall they gotten what they’ve paid for, and a hair more – yet their average attendance rank has been 9.7.  That tells me that, while Rogers hasn’t broken the bank like individual owners sometimes do, their investment in the team has exceeded the fan support.  What’s also worth noting is that while the team has been average over that stretch, the attendance has lagged behind the quality of the team.  hmmm…

Maybe the lack of contending years has reduced the attendance below what you’d expect based on their winning percentage?  Let’s take a look at another large market team, also stuck in the AL East without any years of true contention since 2001: the Orioles.  They’ve been a lot worse than the Jays – average rank of 11.7, and almost 12 more losses per season than the Jays.  They’ve spent a little more, though in a similar spending range as the Jays, with an average rank of 7.9, and gotten a lot less for their dollar.  Their average attendance rank has been 7.5.  Even since Washington split their market in 2005 (which looks to have had a significant effect on attendance) the Orioles have managed to match the Jays attendance figures (a little over 25,000 per game) despite winning fewer games in their best season than the Jays did in their worst.  The Orioles’ attendance rank has been better than their winning percentage rank every single year.

If fans expect the team to spend like a big market, they need to behave like a big market.  That doesn’t mean selling out every game despite not being true contenders, but it does mean drawing in a fashion consistent with their performance.  It’s unreasonable to expect them to top the attendance lists without the product to match, but it’s not unreasonable to expect fan support to match the existing product before taking on high-end salary risks.

While Rogers isn’t the type of ownership that’ll operate at a loss for a championship, they’ve invested in the team at a rate that exceeds the commitment shown by the fans.  Are they risk averse?  Perhaps.  Eccentric billionaires treating their team like a toy?  Nope.  Excessively cheap?  Their track record doesn’t support the claim.