Do you think that Arte feels snake-bitten with the Pujols move?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Considering the value of the team and how much he's made, I think it's disingenuous for Arte to pretend he hasn't made a boatload of money on the team and to use that as an excuse to curb spending. It's one thing to take more care how you rebuild, but to claim that the team would be losing money if he spent more than the current payroll is laughable. Arte said he was concerned about Pujols' legacy. Guess what: Arte will be the guy remembered for flushing Trout's best years down the toilet. 

In terms of income versus expenditures, it is possible that there would be a net loss if too much is spent on payroll. It really doesn't matter what the franchise is worth if Moreno would only get that money by selling the club. It isn't as if that cash is sitting in his hip pocket.

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

In terms of income versus expenditures, it is possible that there would be a net loss if too much is spent on payroll. It really doesn't matter what the franchise is worth if Moreno would only get that money by selling the club. It isn't as if that cash is sitting in his hip pocket.

thank you 

[rottiesworld]

Well Mr. Moreno needs to sit down with Trout and let him now what his plans are and get Mr. Trouts  input on the situation. Mr. Moreno needs to put some money into the team even if he has to pay tax on it a few years, but sooner or later he will have to or the Angels will still be a 3 or 4th place team. Mr. Trout might want certain players and he will work with Mr. Moreno on a contract extension that wont hurt the team, and be able to get his players and make him happy, but they need to get this done. 

[Angelsjunky]

56 minutes ago, rottiesworld said:

Well Mr. Moreno needs to sit down with Trout and let him now what his plans are and get Mr. Trouts  input on the situation. Mr. Moreno needs to put some money into the team even if he has to pay tax on it a few years, but sooner or later he will have to or the Angels will still be a 3 or 4th place team. Mr. Trout might want certain players and he will work with Mr. Moreno on a contract extension that wont hurt the team, and be able to get his players and make him happy, but they need to get this done. 

[tdawg87]

57 minutes ago, rottiesworld said:

Well Mr. Moreno needs to sit down with Trout and let him now what his plans are and get Mr. Trouts  input on the situation. Mr. Moreno needs to put some money into the team even if he has to pay tax on it a few years, but sooner or later he will have to or the Angels will still be a 3 or 4th place team. Mr. Trout might want certain players and he will work with Mr. Moreno on a contract extension that wont hurt the team, and be able to get his players and make him happy, but they need to get this done. 

[greginpsca]

9 hours ago, gurn67 said:

The estimated value of the franchise was $554 million at the end of the 2011 season. The estimated value of the franchise is $1.8 billion today. I wish I was so "snake bit". The real question is why is Arte so obsessed about a few million dollars a year in luxury taxes to try to put a winner around the greatest player this team has ever had (and probably ever will have) on a team that's worth over $1.6 billion more than what he paid for it.

Not bad for a $180 million investment

[HeavenlyHalos]

10 hours ago, NJHalo said:

I agree that the Josh Hamilton signing is what would influence Arte going forward more than Pujols. He got what he overpaid for with Pujols, who has been a good soldier. He got dick from Hamilton.

In exchange for cocaine?

[Torridd]

14 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

You sure about that? I assume you've been a fan for a longer time than 2 years. 

Look where our system was in 2016 compared to now. In just two years, we could have a top 5 farm system AND be in the mix for the AL West race. The future is bright if you can look straight ahead.

I'm generally patient, but it's not like we were in the playoffs yesterday and nothing is guaranteed. I understand Eppler is trying to set up this team to be the equivalent of the pre-2002 team, but I don't see enough of that potential.

[tdawg87]

4 minutes ago, Torridd said:

I'm generally patient, but it's not like we were in the playoffs yesterday and nothing is guaranteed. I understand Eppler is trying to set up this team to be the equivalent of the pre-2002 team, but I don't see enough of that potential.

That's fair. I disagree but that's fair. 

The 2002 team had to rely on mostly homegrown talent, with the exception of Ape and Fullmer. The payroll was smack dab in the middle of the pack, with an ownership that had no intention of spending much more on the product on the field.

Today, we have the added benefit of an owner willing to spend money.

[Blarg]

19 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

The 2002 team had to rely on mostly homegrown talent, with the exception of Ape and Fullmer.

Eckstein was from Boston. Bengie Gill from Texas. Kennedy from St. Louis. Donnelly a scab. Spiezio from the Oakland Correctional Facility. 

[tdawg87]

Lol @ Bengie Gil

The unsung hero of the 2002 Angels.

[Kevin]

6 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Lol @ Bengie Gil

The unsung hero of the 2002 Angels.

I laughed too.

Then I looked up his stats from the series.  BA .800 Slg. 1.000

*sigh*

We committed a quarter of a billion dollars to the wrong Hispanic guy. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

14 hours ago, rottiesworld said:

Well Mr. Moreno needs to sit down with Trout and let him now what his plans are and get Mr. Trouts  input on the situation. Mr. Moreno needs to put some money into the team even if he has to pay tax on it a few years, but sooner or later he will have to or the Angels will still be a 3 or 4th place team. Mr. Trout might want certain players and he will work with Mr. Moreno on a contract extension that wont hurt the team, and be able to get his players and make him happy, but they need to get this done. 

I'm glad that Moreno has you to advise him. I'm sure that he appreciates it.

[Dtwncbad]

17 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

In terms of income versus expenditures, it is possible that there would be a net loss if too much is spent on payroll. It really doesn't matter what the franchise is worth if Moreno would only get that money by selling the club. It isn't as if that cash is sitting in his hip pocket.

1). Negative cash flow and net loss are not the same thing.  Tons of businesses are profitable with negative cash flows.

2). There are 4,659 ways to access equity to cover a negative cash flow.  It is not a matter of access.  It is a matter of the owner deciding if he wants to access equity.

It is up to Arte, not me, but Arte could easily use the actual equity  (and it woukd only be a portion of the annual equity growth, not equity erosion) or the collateral value of the equity (with debt--of which the Angels have none which is rare), to cover additional annual cash flow obligations to improve the team.

Oversimplifying, does Arte want to put equity growth over winning?  Or is he willing to slow equity growth in exchange for cash flexibility to avoid negative cash flow?

No matter what he chooses, he is not going to be less wealthy year over year.  One path builds wealth more than the other but both continue to make him richer.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

7 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

2). There are 4,659 ways to access equity to cover a negative cash flow.  It is not a matter of access.  It is a matter of the owner deciding if he wants to access equity.

By "access equity", I assume that you mean borrowing against the value of the team in order to pay salaries - which he would be incredibly foolish to do, IMO.

The last time that Moreno went all in, we wound up with Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and C. J. Wilson. One of the three is still costing us $30M per season. Spending a bunch in the free agent market does not guarantee success, or lately, even make it probable.

[Lou]

Borrow, Borrow, Borrow! 

[Pancake Bear]

On 10/5/2018 at 5:58 PM, Vegas Halo Fan said:

In terms of income versus expenditures, it is possible that there would be a net loss if too much is spent on payroll. It really doesn't matter what the franchise is worth if Moreno would only get that money by selling the club. It isn't as if that cash is sitting in his hip pocket.

You’re telling me that between tickets sold, merchandise, concessions, and particularly their sweet tv deal, that they end up in the red if they go over that point? I call bs on that. 

[Pancake Bear]

4 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

By "access equity", I assume that you mean borrowing against the value of the team in order to pay salaries - which he would be incredibly foolish to do, IMO.

The last time that Moreno went all in, we wound up with Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and C. J. Wilson. One of the three is still costing us $30M per season. Spending a bunch in the free agent market does not guarantee success, or lately, even make it probable.

This is what I mean when I say that throwing money at every high-priced FA might not be the right route to success. 

[JarsOfClay]

is it possible to restructure Pujols' contract and pay him 9 million a year for 10 years or is that illegal?

 

[eaterfan]

9 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

You’re telling me that between tickets sold, merchandise, concessions, and particularly their sweet tv deal, that they end up in the red if they go over that point? I call bs on that. 

Teams are making money. But there is a point at which they won't. But acting like Arte has been unwilling to spend is absurd. I think he's learned throwing big money at FAs doesn't guarantee anything. I think seeing the budget gives fans something to understand. 

In reality, since every team is making money then every team could spend more. We hold Arte accountable for this but the only advantage we gain is if Arte is willing to go to the break even point when other owners aren't.

[Dtwncbad]

14 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

By "access equity", I assume that you mean borrowing against the value of the team in order to pay salaries - which he would be incredibly foolish to do, IMO.

The last time that Moreno went all in, we wound up with Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and C. J. Wilson. One of the three is still costing us $30M per season. Spending a bunch in the free agent market does not guarantee success, or lately, even make it probable.

So if Arte used some debt to improve the team, and he carefully managed the debt/equity ratio so that it was the healthiest in baseball, he would be foolish?

There is no debt on the team on his balance sheet.  Do you understand how unique this is?

 

[Angel Oracle]

10 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

This is what I mean when I say that throwing money at every high-priced FA might not be the right route to success. 

I would only do it for one guy over the next several years: Arenado.  If the pitching improves and they are banging on the post-season door next season, that could be a great signing a year from now.

But if it would prevent re-signing any of Trout, Simba, or Ohtani, and I was Arte, I would regrettably probably have to refrain even from signing Arenado.

[greginpsca]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:55 AM, Dtwncbad said:

1). Negative cash flow and net loss are not the same thing.  Tons of businesses are profitable with negative cash flows.

2). There are 4,659 ways to access equity to cover a negative cash flow.  It is not a matter of access.  It is a matter of the owner deciding if he wants to access equity.

It is up to Arte, not me, but Arte could easily use the actual equity  (and it woukd only be a portion of the annual equity growth, not equity erosion) or the collateral value of the equity (with debt--of which the Angels have none which is rare), to cover additional annual cash flow obligations to improve the team.

Oversimplifying, does Arte want to put equity growth over winning?  Or is he willing to slow equity growth in exchange for cash flexibility to avoid negative cash flow?

No matter what he chooses, he is not going to be less wealthy year over year.  One path builds wealth more than the other but both continue to make him richer.

And Arte has no debt, only operating expenses. That tv contract helps too.

[Jeff Fletcher]

To answer the original question, I think Arte definitely feels snake bit. (As last winter showed, so do a lot of other owners.)

I remember the infamous talk with Arte at the Newport Christmas boat parade a couple years ago. He basically said “you really get screwed if you get stuck with one of these big contracts.”

Quote

"When you start looking at seven-year deals, they're tough. You really stretch the franchise out. If there's a mistake or injury and it doesn't work out, it really hinders what you're trying to accomplish."

Ever since then, I’ve believed he was more reluctant to get stuck with another Hamilton/Pujols deal than to go over the luxury tax for a year or two.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Jeff Fletcher

[DMVol]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

.....I remember the infamous talk with Arte at the Newport Christmas boat parade a couple years ago. He basically said “you really get screwed if you get stuck with one of these big contracts.”.....

With Pujols, I’ve never bought in to the “we knew it was a bad deal at the time but we thought we had a window to win of 3-4 years”......You just can’t kill your payroll flexibility for a decade, with a guy who was past his prime when you signed him ....it was, is and will continue to be a terrible deal, even if Pujols had been more productive and even if we had won a title...I guess that’s debatable but I just don’t think an aging Pujols was the recipe for a title, and certainly not for extended success...The Hamilton deal is inexplicable.....still just mind boggling that Arte and DiPoto (in some combination) agreed to it.....Although it was also a bad signing, CJ’s deal, if you want to take a chance, was more manageable and understandable...he was pretty good when healthy...not worth 75 million but maybe worth some risk....