I was listening to a MLB radio show. The topic was the O's and who they should have brought in. The general opinion of the hosts and callers, was that there wasn't an obvious player to fill an obvious need.
A Nats fan called in and compared the two MASN teams. he made a valid point that the O's look at their 2012 success and seem ready to stand pat with their existing roster, because they won 93 games last year. he went on to say, the Nats won 98 games but they made moves to fill holes or to upgrade (Span & Soriano). he sees this as the difference between the 2 ownership groups. one hopes for the best, the other makes moves to be the best.
so I looked at the 2 teams' payrolls to see if there might be a reason one team made additions and the other didn't.
baseball prospectus has the Nats 2013 salary at $106.6M The O's are at $72M.
both teams receive the same revenue from MASN. both teams have similar attendance figures from year to year. is there a variable I'm forgetting that would allow the Nats to carry a significantly higher payroll?
keep in mind that I'm looking for something other than "PGA doesn't want to spend" I sort of assume that's true, but I want to make sure I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he's really painted himself into a corner here. I don't see any other excuses.