Would you rather Arte remained owner, or go back to Disney?

[AngelArcher]

Nobody's is interested in what Disney would do with all that TV revenue? Arte has essentially put a hard spending limit on payroll and is looking more and more like he's most interested in maximizing profits. West coast Yankees right?

[Inside Pitch]

Nobody's is interested in what Disney would do with all that TV revenue? Arte has essentially put a hard spending limit on payroll and is looking more and more like he's most interested in maximizing profits. West coast Yankees right?

 

I think most of us remember Disney's hard spending limits on payroll and eye towards keeping shareholders happy...   So, yeah...

[AngelArcher]

That was before the TV contract

[Inside Pitch]

That was before the TV contract

 

Doesnt matter -- baseball accounting will always be designed to show minimal profits -- it's how they do it..   The shareholders would always bitch because the book numbers will always look ugly.   Disney discovered this only after entering the sports world.

 

Have you ever asked yourself why most baseball teams are broken up into several different entities?   Its so they can play with the bottom line and make it seem they aren't making money.   "The Lords of the Realm" know how to play with the numbers.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Inside Pitch

[AngelArcher]

So then how do you know what their payroll budget would be with the new tv contract. I just stated I'd be interested to see how they'd spend that 150mil per year.

 

It's not like Disney spent like the Rays or A's

[Inside Pitch]

So then how do you know what their payroll budget would be with the new tv contract. I just stated I'd be interested to see how they'd spend that 150mil per year.

 

It's not like Disney spent like the Rays or A's

 

Pretty sure I already answered you then..   Most of us remember their hardline limits on payroll and their eyes towards keeping the shareholders happy.    

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I'm not at all trying to be condescending but, go pick up a copy of Baseball and Billions by Andrew Zimbalist or any other book that focuses on the creative way MLB teams try to hide their revenue -- you'll get a better understanding of how funny the numbers games are with MLB teams..  Yes the Angels make more money via TV, and if Disney were still the owners they would find a way to mask those profits.  Doesn't make them dicks, it's just how teams operate... so the shareholders would always look at the team as a bit of a money pit.  The other accounting practice you are completely glossing over or just unaware of is the initial depreciation.   It's highly unlikely Disney spends to bring in players the way Arte did in 04, they wouldn't have been able to take the one time depreciation.   This is the same reason the Dodgers front office has been willing to spend so freely early on -- they gotta take advantage of that while they can. 

 

Now, consider this....  rather than asking me what I think Disney may have done with the added revenue, maybe you should be asking yourself if they would have taken the steps to become a large revenue monster in the first place -- because they were they were quite content being a small market team.  Sorry, but you seem to be completely glossing over the efforts Arte has made to make the Angels "big market"....  minus him, I doubt it happens.   

 

If your argument is that they would have spent that money more wisely....  What are you basing that on?   They didn't exactly have a very good track record with FA.  And it's hard to give them credit for doing more with a smaller payroll given they inherited most of that team and the contracts were already in place.  Salmon, Edmonds, etc etc...  they had all signed long term contracts for much less money than they likely would have been able to get had they been allowed to reach FA...

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by Inside Pitch

[AngelArcher]

I thought this was a thread about hypothetical ownership moving forward? So my interest in what Disney would do with the current TV contract still applies.

Edited July 3, 2015 by AngelArcher

[ten ocho recon scout]

That was before the TV contract

i think disneys income probably dwarfs the media deal

[JarsOfClay]

You like how they handled something that never happened? Bill Bavasi resigned.... Disney didn't ride him about Collins BTW, Disney (Tony Tavares), wanted the entire team traded away.. Bavasi disagreed but where he caved and quit, accepting a job as a special assistant ala Reagins, Bill Stoneman told Tavares to STFU and the rest is history. It was the players that went apeshit about Collins, the mutiny happened when news broke that the team was contemplating an extension -- Tony Tavares was anti player because he was pro Collins... Thus the famous WHY CANT YOU TRADE THEM ALL quote.

Jim Edmonds didn't delay any surgery -- he hurt his labrum in April of 1999 lifting weights, and had his surgery on April 19th. He made it back that August and played out the end of that season -- you are right Mo Vaughn did pop off, he questioned Edmonds after Mike DiGiovanna quoted Edmonds as saying he had felt pain in the shoulder for years... Vaughn FWIW later acknowledged he wasn't at all aware of Edmonds situation and that he was simply reacting/responding to the quote from DiGiovanna.. Edmonds FWIW reportedly threatened to kick DiGiovanna's ass for the incident.

As far as Disney FA signings go.... How many AL MVPs or Cy Youngs did they sign? I guess Tim Belcher and Jack McDowell both came close to winning the Cy... I know Ill never forget Jim Leyritz MVP season.

bill bavasi resigned because he was fired and given the option to save face, it's that simple. i dont remember tavares telling him to trade the entire team away, source?

tim belcher was a signing that was widely praised by most of the fans and the media and it was only a 2 year deal. it didnt work out, but at least it didnt cripple the franchise for decades like arte's free agents do.

and id rather have leyritz than pay josh hamilton 25 million a year to play for the texas rangers.

Edited July 3, 2015 by JarsOfClay

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Yeah. Disney prints money.

[JoJo26]

O'Malley....

[AngelArcher]

If your argument is that they would have spent that money more wisely....  What are you basing that on?   They didn't exactly have a very good track record with FA.  And it's hard to give them credit for doing more with a smaller payroll given they inherited most of that team and the contracts were already in place.  Salmon, Edmonds, etc etc...  they had all signed long term contracts for much less money than they likely would have been able to get had they been allowed to reach FA...

This is absolutely wrong. Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson were all given extensions under Disney ownership. Less we forget they also made Mo Vaughn the highest paid player at the time.

[ten ocho recon scout]

This is absolutely wrong. Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson were all given extensions under Disney ownership. Less we forget they also made Mo Vaughn the highest paid player at the time.

fair enough point. But so you remember anyone, aside from vaughn, they signed? That core team was literally a piece away back then. And they never, with all their billions, brought in one real pitcher. And this was the steroid years..when every winter type a free agents were out

Like i said, disney viewed the angels as an extension of disneyland, thats wht their name change was all about. Im not saying thats a good or bad thing, but they werent some great ownership group. And i think moreno has showed hes far more invested in the team, both financially and emotional, than they ever were

[Brian Ilten]

I started disliking arte during spring training 2014.

We had some good seats between homeplate and the angels dugout. About 5 rows behind arte.

He brought his personal cooler with what must have been a 12 pack of coors light. He went through that pack in about 4 innings. BC some clubhouse guy took the cooler (I assume refilled it) and then brought it back 10 min later and arte grabs a cold one.

He could pay millions for players to beat his own team but can't throw a few bucks to get drunk.

Coors Light???

Enough said. Disney without a doubt.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Brian Ilten

[Inside Pitch]

bill bavasi resigned because he was fired and given the option to save face, it's that simple. i dont remember tavares telling him to trade the entire team away, source?

tim belcher was a signing that was widely praised by most of the fans and the media and it was only a 2 year deal. it didnt work out, but at least it didnt cripple the franchise for decades like arte's free agents do.

and id rather have leyritz than pay josh hamilton 25 million a year to play for the texas rangers.

 

Bill Bavasi left of his own accord....  The friction was over Tavares' demands that he trade the roster after the mutiny... Tavares was pro-Collings (as was Bavasi), and he thought what the players did was an act of treason.  Bavasi wanted no part of tearing the team apart and rather than do as he was told he chose to resign.  Sorry, but Preston Gomez was actually a part of that front office..  he had always been very close to both Bill his brother Peter, and their father Buzzie..  You'll have to forgive me if I choose to believe the things he said.

 

But by all means -- keep believing what you want.

 

 

This is absolutely wrong. Salmon, Erstad, and Anderson were all given extensions under Disney ownership. Less we forget they also made Mo Vaughn the highest paid player at the time.

 

It's not wrong --  we are talking about different signings.

 

Salmon had signed his initial long term contract  in 1996 prior to Disney coming on board -- you are likely thinking about his 4 year 40 million dollar deal he signed in 2001.  Edmonds (who I mentioned) signed a 5 year deal in 1995, Anderson a four year deal in 1996.   I didnt mention Erstad -- he was definitely a Disney signing.   You can likely look this up at BB-R.com

 

So, while Disney DID re-sign them, they had all been under club control to team friendly contracts when they acquired the franchise..

 

BTW -- Mo Vaughn....  He was a perfect example of a team willing to make a deal because of the initial depreciation.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Inside Pitch

[AngelsLongBall]

You guys are shitting all over some good sessions beer. Ice cold domestic light beer while watching a sporting event in the sun is the only way to fly. What are you gonna do, sip on double IPA and be done?

[AngelsLongBall]

I started disliking arte during spring training 2014.

We had some good seats between homeplate and the angels dugout. About 5 rows behind arte.

He brought his personal cooler with what must have been a 12 pack of coors light. He went through that pack in about 4 innings. BC some clubhouse guy took the cooler (I assume refilled it) and then brought it back 10 min later and arte grabs a cold one.

He could pay millions for players to beat his own team but can't throw a few bucks to get drunk.

Sounds like Arte and I would hit it off

[sneaky_flute]

Did Moreno own Disney at one point? 

[AngelArcher]

 

Bill Bavasi left of his own accord....  The friction was over Tavares' demands that he trade the roster after the mutiny... Tavares was pro-Collings (as was Bavasi), and he thought what the players did was an act of treason.  Bavasi wanted no part of tearing the team apart and rather than do as he was told he chose to resign.  Sorry, but Preston Gomez was actually a part of that front office..  he had always been very close to both Bill his brother Peter, and their father Buzzie..  You'll have to forgive me if I choose to believe the things he said.

 

But by all means -- keep believing what you want.

 

 

 

It's not wrong --  we are talking about different signings.

 

Salmon had signed his initial long term contract  in 1996 prior to Disney coming on board -- you are likely thinking about his 4 year 40 million dollar deal he signed in 2001.  Edmonds (who I mentioned) signed a 5 year deal in 1995, Anderson a four year deal in 1996.   I didnt mention Erstad -- he was definitely a Disney signing.   You can likely look this up at BB-R.com

 

So, while Disney DID re-sign them, they had all been under club control to team friendly contracts when they acquired the franchise..

 

BTW -- Mo Vaughn....  He was a perfect example of a team willing to make a deal because of the initial depreciation.

 

 

The point is Disney did spend money. No, they didn't have lots of big FA signings. They were busy locking up their own players. Anderson got another 4 years in 2000. They spend as much as the Angels generated. I just wonder what they would do now with the current revenue.

 

I always thought of Moreno as a fan's owner who was willing to win at all cost, but these last few years have got me wondering what he values more: a ring or the bottom line?

[Kenny]

I feel like Disney would definitely move the team to industry and then sell, so they can snatch up the Angels stadium land for a new park or parking lot.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Coors Light???

Enough said. Disney without a doubt.

....disney would drink apple martinis though..virgin ones

[Inside Pitch]

Did Moreno own Disney at one point? 

 

No Sneak -- he had Viacom stock as part of the buyout of his billboard company.

[UndertheHalo]

I dont know how any angel fan could seriously think "man, i sure wish we could go back to the Disney days. Arte Moreno is so awful" the idea is just incredible. Arte is financially and personally invested in his team. He wants to win more badly then any of you. Have no doubt of that. The man has literally sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into the the team. The fact that he's done good work in more than quadrupling the value of the team; should prove his dedication. Seemingly to some of you it proves that he's greedy or something. The pujols and hamilton signings, are just more evidence of his dedication to making the Angels a winner. Id rather have an owner willing to splash and fail then some corporation issuing hard budgets that will never ever make the off-season exciting. Its crazy to me that some of you actually hold it against him that he made these moves. Its fine to be critical of the wisdom of the moves, but to me at least you fans should be grateful that the owner is willing to bring the biggest name players to help us win. Just lame that people want to figure ouy ways to imagine him having a nefarious agenda. Arte has had a rough year but im very happy he's the owner. I think a guy like arte will always be committed to winning, and when he's not anymore im sure he will sell and move on.

Edited July 3, 2015 by UndertheHalo

[Stradling]

Yeah. Disney prints money.

Problem is they don't spend it.

[Stradling]

Anyone find it odd that Calzone hates Arte because of him wanting benefits from the city, but has no issues with Disney even though they pay no city taxes on ticket sales?