David Price signs with the Red Sox.

[AngelsFanSince86]

And I told everyone here that Arte is not going to sign any of these high priced free agents this season. There's too much dead wood on the books right now. Next offseason will be different.

 

I just really don't see that being an issue.  It would be incredibly stupid on their part to plan on spending next year when there will be nobody to spend on rather than bite the bullet knowing that all that dead wood will be gone in a year.  I'm not saying it won't happen, but I just find it highly unlikely. It just doesn't makes sense to wait.  It would be one thing if all contracts were one year contracts.  However, when you are talking about signing guys for anywhere from 5-10 years and you see a guy you like then why would you not grab him if you only have to go over the luxury tax for one year?  I think if Arte decides not to spend big this offseason it has more to do with their long term plan than waiting for money to come off the books.  Maybe they just don't want to spend big on FAs anymore. That would make more sense than waiting a year to spend even though there will be nobody to spend on.

[Angelsfirst]

"I never really understood the Boston hatred from people on here lol,"

See the '86, '04, '07, and '08 postseasons, the Manny-Big Pappy D-Bag combo, and the "Chow-dare" spilled on the Budweiser patio every time the Sux are in town.

Thank you.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

A Million per Start!!!!

 

 

So, Weaver and his 82mph gas and CJ have suddenly become tradable commodities? 

 

Make it happen Eppsy!

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

I'd walk up to Leake or SMardtichwhatever and offer 72M on a 4-year with a 5th year team option deal now!

[Homebrewer]

Jeff Samardzija

Learning to spell it...I gotta feeling it's gonna get used a lot around here.

[Troll Daddy]

I'm not sure why many of you like the player opt out contract. This only benefits the player not the team. There should be a trade option for the team if the player doesn't opt out.

Signed

Michael Scioscia

[marcosantinia12]

I'm not sure why many of you like the player opt out contract. This only benefits the player not the team. There should be a trade option for the team if the player doesn't opt out.

Signed

Michael Scioscia

Hey that trade option doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. Wonder why clubs haven't implemented yet (that I know of). Like a clause that vests if a player chooses not to opt out.

[ABC]

This signing makes our Pujols contract seem like a bargain.

 

Well done, Boston.  Well done.

 

Finally, Pujols is tradeable if not for the no-trade.

[ten ocho recon scout]

As long as pro sports franchises get these ludicrous TV deals the money will keep flowing.

Thing is the incredibly inefficient market for video entertainment is primed for radical shakeup. How many channels do you actually watch with a cable or satellite sub? How many subs actually watch sports?

I haven't paid for cable or satellite in years. I easily could afford. Just choose not to.

I fully expect Fox, Time Warner, ESPN and others to face substantial financial write offs in the billions 5-10 years from now and cord cutting increases.

This will have serious financial ramifications for all pro sports teams.

been having the same conversation with some friends. The TW deal seemz to have backfired a bit. Exactly like you said, most people only watch maybe 1 percent of all the channels they pay for. As people become more tech savvy they can cord cut and still see what they want.

If i was smarter id figure out how to do it myself

[ten ocho recon scout]

Saw a sign painted on the street one time that said simply "stop making stupid people famous."

and it was probably underneath a giant kardashian billboard.

[ukyah]

I'm not sure why many of you like the player opt out contract. This only benefits the player not the team. There should be a trade option for the team if the player doesn't opt out.

Signed

Michael Scioscia

 

 

the player opt out seems like a good idea from the player's perspective, and in many ways it is, but it always serves the club to get peak seasons at a controlled rate. the dodgers are the best and most recent example. they got greinke's absolute peak. they paid him, albeit handsomely, for his performance on their field, without any of the dead money that would come later. best case scenario for them is they allow him to walk.

 

say the angels gave heyward the 10/200 contract with a 3 year opt out. also say he kills it for the angels, insuring that he will use his opt out. the angels let him go in 2019 after having got great production from him for a total of 60 million aav over 3 seasons. they then let him leave as a 29 year old FA. in that scenario, they've paid an elite player for only his prime seasons. which team wouldn't do that? if i were the angels FO, i'd sign him and hope he took the opt out in three years. it's literally the best case scenario.

[ten ocho recon scout]

A few days ago, i complimented marcosantinia12 on a few of his posts. Then you find out hes a sux fan.

Obama, if youre reading this, this is why everyone is up in arms over the refugees. They all seem innocent and nice at first. Then you find out theyre evil

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

A few days ago, i complimented marcosantinia12 on a few of his posts. Then you find out hes a sux fan.

Obama, if youre reading this, this is why everyone is up in arms over the refugees. They all seem innocent and nice at first. Then you find out theyre evil

 

I figured most of the people on here were closet Saux fans...The way they sway around here and consume chowder .........  .. Turrible, Just, turrible. 

Edited December 2, 2015 by SlappyUtilityGuy

[ten ocho recon scout]

Just wait until ortiz' last game here, and we hive him a painting of the derek jeter kayak. Place will go berserk

[ukyah]

i don't get caught up in the hate. i guess i understand the dynamic of "hating" your rivals or those teams that have eliminated you in the past, but i've never been drawn to it.

 

i like a lot of teams, mostly those with a lot of history. that's probably what attracts me the most. i also like uniforms, so that's a way that i might be drawn to a team. i'm more likely to hate a team that has no history and changes uniforms all the time, which imo, is a big part of establishing history.

 

i cheer for the angels, but i like the A's, dodgers, cubs, cardinals, red sox, yankees, reds, royals, giants, etc. teams like those.

 

teams i hate, for the reasons stated above? padres, dbacks, marlins (i like their black hat though), brewers suck now, rockies. rangers and mariners are kind of meh. come to think of it, i probably like all mlb teams other than those 5, and am indifferent to two.

[Tank]

and it was probably underneath a giant kardashian billboard.

 

this one wasn't, but it should have been.

[AngelsLakersFan]

i don't get caught up in the hate. i guess i understand the dynamic of "hating" your rivals or those teams that have eliminated you in the past, but i've never been drawn to it.

 

i like a lot of teams, mostly those with a lot of history. that's probably what attracts me the most. i also like uniforms, so that's a way that i might be drawn to a team. i'm more likely to hate a team that has no history and changes uniforms all the time, which imo, is a big part of establishing history.

 

i cheer for the angels, but i like the A's, dodgers, cubs, cardinals, red sox, yankees, reds, royals, giants, etc. teams like those.

 

teams i hate, for the reasons stated above? padres, dbacks, marlins (i like their black hat though), brewers suck now, rockies. rangers and mariners are kind of meh. come to think of it, i probably like all mlb teams other than those 5, and am indifferent to two.

 

I consider myself a baseball fan first, but I only have a passion for the Angels. I can't call myself a fan of other teams, but I do actively root for teams that have created enjoyable rivalries with the Halos over the years. This mostly applies to the Athletics and the Dodgers. While I don't think I could ever root for the Dodgers in the world series I do really enjoy when both teams are playing well and face off against each other. It creates a good dynamic with friends who support the other side. With Oakland there was no better rivalry in sports, Red Sox / Yankees be damned, than the Angels and Athletics between 2002 and around 2010. The game is a lot more fun when the Angels and those teams are doing well.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I'm not sure why many of you like the player opt out contract. This only benefits the player not the team. There should be a trade option for the team if the player doesn't opt out.

Signed

Michael Scioscia

 

It is definitely a benefit to the player, and a significant one at that. These contracts are freely negotiated though, so teams must be getting something back in return. That benefit is a LOWER total value on the contract. This deal represents 3 seasons at less than market value (as of today), in exchange for 4 additional seasons over market value. If the 4 seasons are not actually over market value then the player can renegotiate a deal at market value. This gives the player the motivation to go out and earn another pay day rather than just collect the pay checks. If the player does that then the team ends up with 3 prime seasons at significantly less than market value, if not then the team is on the hook long term albeit at a cost less than what they would've been paying had they not included the opt out.

 

Let's say Price is a 6 win pitcher, losing 0.8 war per season, with teams are paying $8m per win (without inflation), and both parties agreeing to a 7 year contract. Lets look at value  ->  actual contract

2016: $41.6m  ->  $30m  =  +$11.6m 

2017: $35.2m  ->  $30m  =  +$5.2m

2018: $28.8m  ->  $30m  =  -$1.2m

2019: $22.4m  ->  $31m  =  -$8.6m

2020: $16m     ->  $32m  =  -$16m

2021: $9.6m    ->  $32m  =  -$22.4m

2022: $3.2m    ->  $32m  =  -$28.8m

 

Looking at that break down the Red Sox are either expecting a lot of salary inflation over the next seven years, or they are simply paying out waaayyy more than $8m per win right now. You can see the benefit of the opt out to the Sox, as it could occur right as the deal heads south for them. The first three seasons represent a likely surplus in value, with everything beyond that being a disaster. This is about a $60m over pay if he doesn't opt out or prices for wins don't inflate. Even if they do it's still around a ~$50m overpay. With ~20 wins expected from the deal it would seem that the Sox paid closer to $10m or even $11m per win. I can't imagine a scenario that would lead to Price opting out though.

[Ohtaniland]

I just really don't see that being an issue. It would be incredibly stupid on their part to plan on spending next year when there will be nobody to spend on rather than bite the bullet knowing that all that dead wood will be gone in a year. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I just find it highly unlikely. It just doesn't makes sense to wait. It would be one thing if all contracts were one year contracts. However, when you are talking about signing guys for anywhere from 5-10 years and you see a guy you like then why would you not grab him if you only have to go over the luxury tax for one year? I think if Arte decides not to spend big this offseason it has more to do with their long term plan than waiting for money to come off the books. Maybe they just don't want to spend big on FAs anymore. That would make more sense than waiting a year to spend even though there will be nobody to spend on.

I believe that Arte has a set budget and even if it disappoints the fans he's going to stick to that budget. Next season money comes off the books and it will be up to Eppler to figure out how to fill the roster. I think that a $150M budget should easily put a competitive team on the field.

[Ohtaniland]

And the offseason just got started. I look forward to you being wrong but then complaining about the signing.

Don't get disappointed if Arte decides not sign any big contracts this offseason because 3 million fans including myself will still show up to the games and Arte knows that.

[AngelsFanSince86]

I believe that Arte has a set budget and even if it disappoints the fans he's going to stick to that budget. Next season money comes off the books and it will be up to Eppler to figure out how to fill the roster. I think that a $150M budget should easily put a competitive team on the field.

 

Yeah, like I said, I could understand if their long term goal is to just try and stay cheap and not sign anymore big FAs (although I think this is a waste considering Trout is a once in lifetime if not once in a franchise type of player).  It was the notion that they would wait until next offseason to spend that I don't agree with.  If they are planning on spending next offseason it makes no sense to not just spend now since there won't be anyone to spend on next offseason.

 

I think Arte also knows the kinds of dividends a WS pays out.  Your fanbase grows, your merchandise sales grow, and your ticket sales grow.  I mean the Royals attendance increased by nearly 50% from 2014 to 2015.  The Giants have sold out every single game from the time they won their first of the last 3 WS they won to now.  

 

Edit:  And it doesn't just take a WS win to do this.  When the Angels were making the playoffs almost every year from 2004-2009, their attendance was averaging about 350,000 more a year.  

Edited December 3, 2015 by AngelsFanSince86

[Ohtaniland]

Yeah, like I said, I could understand if their long term goal is to just try and stay cheap and not sign anymore big FAs (although I think this is a waste considering Trout is a once in lifetime if not once in a franchise type of player). It was the notion that they would wait until next offseason to spend that I don't agree with. If they are planning on spending next offseason it makes no sense to not just spend now since there won't be anyone to spend on next offseason.

I think Arte also knows the kinds of dividends a WS pays out. Your fanbase grows, your merchandise sales grow, and your ticket sales grow. I mean the Royals attendance increased by nearly 50% from 2014 to 2015. The Giants have sold out every single game from the time they won their first of the last 3 WS they won to now.

Edit: And it doesn't just take a WS win to do this. When the Angels were making the playoffs almost every year from 2004-2009, their attendance was averaging about 350,000 more a year.

We haven't won a playoff game since 2009 and Arte still gets 3 million fans to the games every year. We certainly didn't see Arte cross that luxury tax threshold in any of those seasons and we've had Trout, Pujols, Weaver, Wilson, Hamilton in some of those lineups. I think Arte has had numerous opportunities to cross the threshold to WIN but he didn't. He knows a little bit about profit margins.

[AngelsFanSince86]

We haven't won a playoff game since 2009 and Arte still gets 3 million fans to the games every year. We certainly didn't see Arte cross that luxury tax threshold in any of those seasons and we've had Trout, Pujols, Weaver, Wilson, Hamilton in some of those lineups. I think Arte has had numerous opportunities to cross the threshold to WIN but he didn't. He knows a little bit about profit margins.

 

Right, but like I said during those years attendance was up by 10%.  Thats no small margin.  One can assume that merchandise sales saw a similar increase.  I understand he didn't have to go over the luxury tax before, but this is a very unique situation that didn't occur during those years.  One where a very large chunk of money is coming off the books next year, but all the FAs worth signing will be available this year.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

We haven't won a playoff game since 2009 and Arte still gets 3 million fans to the games every year. We certainly didn't see Arte cross that luxury tax threshold in any of those seasons and we've had Trout, Pujols, Weaver, Wilson, Hamilton in some of those lineups. I think Arte has had numerous opportunities to cross the threshold to WIN but he didn't. He knows a little bit about profit margins.

 

We did go over in 2004 I believe. We may still be cracking 3m fans a season but the crowd in attendance doesn't look nearly as thick. I think Arte has had to get creative to finagle 3m fans through discounts, promotions and devaluing his tickets in general. I don't see 3m fans being sustainable without more consistent winning.

 

His Pujols / Hamilton contracts have showed me that he wants to win. His team is a cash cow so the money is unquestionably there. The luxury tax threshold is arbitrary low these days. In the past it was so high that it really only existed to rein in the Yankees. Now it is a potential reality for 1/3rd of the league.

[Aaronkv]

"I was just saving all my Postseason wins for the Red Sox" ~ David Price.

 

 

Have to make it first dude.