Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

I Wish Henry Samueli Owned the Angels


Lhalo

Recommended Posts

One thing is for sure if Samueli decides to buy the Angels now, he will probably have to go into debt unlike Arte, which will give him a budget, just like Arte.  If he bought the team for $170 million as opposed to the $1.4 Billion it is worth today, it might be different.  I highly doubt a guy worth $4-5 billion pays cash for something that costs a third of his worth.  I am sure at some point Arte will sell the team, and my guess is it will be in the next 5 years or so.  If I were in his situation, I would sell now, before the Trout extension and while the value is high for the team.  Let the new owner come in, deal with Albert, deal with the possible Trout extension and figure out the stadium issues.  This won’t happen, but if I were 70 plus years old and my kids didn’t want to take over the team, I would sell high and ride off into the sunset.  I am sure if I did own the Angels, it would be a lot tougher to do that, since I have been a life long Angel fan, unlike Arte.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry Samueli also doesn’t really give a shit about winning.  He’s a venue operator.  He’s had the Ducks on an internal payroll for years.  In a league that has a hard payroll cap.  Even when the Ducks were in a long window of having a chance to win a cup the team didn’t do anything to push over the top.  He seems like a decent enough owner, he’s done well building the Ducks brand locally.  But he’s transparently not overly concerned with winning championships.  AW would absolutely lose it’s fu*king mind watching a Samueli owned team not do shit to win once the team is close.

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

One thing is for sure if Samueli decides to buy the Angels now, he will probably have to go into debt unlike Arte, which will give him a budget, just like Arte.  If he bought the team for $170 million as opposed to the $1.4 Billion it is worth today, it might be different.  I highly doubt a guy worth $4-5 billion pays cash for something that costs a third of his worth.  I am sure at some point Arte will sell the team, and my guess is it will be in the next 5 years or so.  If I were in his situation, I would sell now, before the Trout extension and while the value is high for the team.  Let the new owner come in, deal with Albert, deal with the possible Trout extension and figure out the stadium issues.  This won’t happen, but if I were 70 plus years old and my kids didn’t want to take over the team, I would sell high and ride off into the sunset.  I am sure if I did own the Angels, it would be a lot tougher to do that, since I have been a life long Angel fan, unlike Arte.  

I agree with basically everything you said except for selling the team before signing Trout.  Having Trout signed up increases the teams value.  This is exactly why the Marlins previous ownership gave Stanton that contract. Arte is getting older.  Obviously, he’s probably going to sell sooner then later.  Hopefully he decides to make 1 more push for a ring at some point in the next few years. 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not positive how it works, but I would assume when determining value of a franchise debt would come into play.  Well having a $400 million contract you’d think would bring the value down on a ledger sheet.  I could be totally wrong as I don’t do this for a living, but logically it makes sense.  Yes he does add value, but not sure it is quantifiable in a situation like this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Henry Samueli also doesn’t really give a shit about winning.  He’s a venue operator.  He’s had the Ducks on an internal payroll for years.  In a league that has a hard payroll cap.  Even when the Ducks were in a long window of having a chance to win a cup the team didn’t do anything to push over the top.  He seems like a decent enough owner, he’s done well building the Ducks brand locally.  But he’s transparently not overly concerned with winning championships.  AW would absolutely lose it’s fu*king mind watching a Samueli owned team not do shit to win once the team is close.

Exactly this. Samueli is a good guy and good for the area, but he does NOT care that much about winning. The Ducks have had incredible opportunities over the past 7-8 years to win another Cup and Samueli NEVER pushed all the chips in. Say what you want about Arte, but he has shelled out some cash. Terrible decisions in hindsight, but you can't say that Arte has not been pot committed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

Exactly this. Samueli is a good guy and good for the area, but he does NOT care that much about winning. The Ducks have had incredible opportunities over the past 7-8 years to win another Cup and Samueli NEVER pushed all the chips in. Say what you want about Arte, but he has shelled out some cash. Terrible decisions in hindsight, but you can't say that Arte has not been pot committed. 

I think it' I think you're discounting the move for Kessler. 

I also think the Ducks are in a very different situation than the Angels. I think if the Ducks are ever terrible the bottom could really drop out and the fanbase could disappear. I think the Ducks are always taking a bit of a long term view because of this. They have built a pretty good farm system (although it's weaker now because sustained success has led to lower draft picks, and the expansion draft) and have to rely on it. They do have a budget and it increases when they are competitive, but they aren't going to trade their talent to go all in for the reasons above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I think it' I think you're discounting the move for Kessler. 

I also think the Ducks are in a very different situation than the Angels. I think if the Ducks are ever terrible the bottom could really drop out and the fanbase could disappear. I think the Ducks are always taking a bit of a long term view because of this. They have built a pretty good farm system (although it's weaker now because sustained success has led to lower draft picks, and the expansion draft) and have to rely on it. They do have a budget and it increases when they are competitive, but they aren't going to trade their talent to go all in for the reasons above. 

You're probably right, especially because of the way things look right now. But, there still were opportunities to improve those teams and the Ducks were never really close to the cap or did they ever push above their set internal budget for a few of those years where they were oh so close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, robblin17 said:

You're probably right, especially because of the way things look right now. But, there still were opportunities to improve those teams and the Ducks were never really close to the cap or did they ever push above their set internal budget for a few of those years where they were oh so close.

False narrative. Common misconception, but the Ducks were actually up against the cap for several years there. The notion that the Samueli’s handicapped Murray is bogus. Where he is at fault is not firing his GM (Murray) who can’t see how awful the coach is (Carlyle). Both should’ve been gone after last year’s playoff debacle. Samueli just doesn’t know anything about hockey and trusts his ‘hockey guy’. This makes it virtually impossible to win because Murray either doesn’t know or is unwilling to do what needs to be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

False narrative. Common misconception, but the Ducks were actually up against the cap for several years there. The notion that the Samueli’s handicapped Murray is bogus. Where he is at fault is not firing his GM (Murray) who can’t see how awful the coach is (Carlyle). Both should’ve been gone after last year’s playoff debacle. Samueli just doesn’t know anything about hockey and trusts his ‘hockey guy’. This makes it virtually impossible to win because Murray either doesn’t know or is unwilling to do what needs to be done. 

I agree that Murray mostly is to blame, but I don’t buy that the Samueli’s just have no idea what’s going on.  And a few million dollars is a good player in the NHL.  The Ducks undeniably never truly went all in in pursuit of a cup and I think the Samueli’s have a big hand in that.  They have their internal number and that’s full stop it as far as I can tell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d love them to be owners. They have spent big on players. Murray is one who is very cautious on going after big names or big guys. But he’s also built their farm. Good owners. They have really engaged OC in terms of hockey. As a hockey player I see all that they’ve done throughout the community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

I am not positive how it works, but I would assume when determining value of a franchise debt would come into play.  Well having a $400 million contract you’d think would bring the value down on a ledger sheet.  I could be totally wrong as I don’t do this for a living, but logically it makes sense.  Yes he does add value, but not sure it is quantifiable in a situation like this.  

I think the value is in having increased cost certainty and a player that can be sold to the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I agree that Murray mostly is to blame, but I don’t buy that the Samueli’s just have no idea what’s going on.  And a few million dollars is a good player in the NHL.  The Ducks undeniably never truly went all in in pursuit of a cup and I think the Samueli’s have a big hand in that.  They have their internal number and that’s full stop it as far as I can tell. 

Let me say it again since it didn’t register the first time: They did spend to the cap for a few seasons when they had a legit shot at the Cup. Samueli was unwilling to go all in every year, but when their window was open, he approved the higher payroll. The story that the Ducks wouldn’t spend to the cap was slightly erroneous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Let me say it again since it didn’t register the first time: They did spend to the cap for a few seasons when they had a legit shot at the Cup. Samueli was unwilling to go all in every year, but when their window was open, he approved the higher payroll. The story that the Ducks wouldn’t spend to the cap was slightly erroneous. 

False man.  Since 2010 they’ve spent to within 2 million of it once.  5-6 million a bunch of times a few times where they were as much as a 14 million cap hit below.  You can go look it up.  The numbers are on the nhl website and others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

False man.  Since 2010 they’ve spent to within 2 million of it once.  5-6 million a bunch of times a few times where they were as much as a 14 million cap hit below.  You can go look it up.  The numbers are on the nhl website and others. 

You literally just proved me correct. Kudos on arguing against yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

You literally just proved me correct. Kudos on arguing against yourself. 

Ya ok.  You’re arguing for the sake of it.  A 5 or 6 million dollar forward is a solid top 6 player in the NHL.  Do you imagine that wouldn’t have made a difference for the Ducks ? 

They spent up to within 2 million of the cap once in the last 10 years.  Which is what you’re trying to argue that they do frequently.  Sometimes, like 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years they’re way under the cap.  Again like I said.  Like 13-14 million.  Not exactly the aggressive payroll of an owner that really wants to win.  Especially in a cost controlled league like the NHL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya ok.  You’re arguing for the sake of it.  A 5 or 6 million dollar forward is a solid top 6 player in the NHL.  Do you imagine that wouldn’t have made a difference for the Ducks ? 

They spent up to within 2 million of the cap once in the last 10 years.  Which is what you’re trying to argue that they do frequently.  Sometimes, like 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years they’re way under the cap.  Again like I said.  Like 13-14 million.  Not exactly the aggressive payroll of an owner that really wants to win.  Especially in a cost controlled league like the NHL.  

One last time. I don't know if you don't follow the Ducks closely or else you just are slow, but here it is: Eric Stephens has made clear on multiple occasions that Bob Murray had permission to spend up to the cap if necessary when they were in their window. I haven't checked the exact numbers, so I'll assume you're correct on that. Basically, this isn't a jigsaw puzzle where you can simply max out against the cap. It doesn't work that way.

Part of the spending involved was related to the trade deadline. In a couple of seasons, Murray balked at the prices in trades (he tends to be cheap on the trade market). One year, as another example, he tried to trade for Kesler but was unsuccessful at the deadline before finally trading for him in the off-season. Failed trades doesn't mean the pocketbook isn't open - that's what you're missing. 

Where you argued against yourself: You admitted that the payroll fluctuated - exactly what I said - which shows that they spent more when competitive, and less when they weren't. You also seem to miss the difference between a hard and a soft cap - generally speaking, you need to leave some wiggle room when you're up against a hard cap. Murray also was managing based on which young players required imminent extensions. 

The evidence is clear that Samueli opened the purse strings, you just miss it because it's not what you expect to see. If you account for multiple factors, though, the evidence is actually what you should expect to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...