Trout Extension Concern

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

You cannot get fair value for Trout.  You can't.

Any team that has a large enough group of young players to tempt the Angels would just move forward with their own impressive group of young players.

There would be no reason for them to trade a massive group of talent and put all their eggs in one basket in Trout.  Then they would have Trout and nothing else?  That doesn't work.

So how about if there was a team that was one big performer away from being stacked, and they had the prospects to make a deal?  Well they also wouldn't blow their whole farm for Trout when they could fill that one need by trading for a different player and hold on to some of their prospects.  So that doesn't work either.

Trout is literally too good to expect to get fair value for him.

and that's only the on field considerations.  

How many of Arte's 3mil fans the last few years have come to see Trout?  

Paying him 40mil per year is likely paid for and then some just by his draw alone.  

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and that's only the on field considerations.  

How many of Arte's 3mil fans the last few years have come to see Trout?  

Paying him 40mil per year is likely paid for and then some just by his draw alone.  

Interesting take, if thats the case then shouldnt his current salary be discounted against the budget?

[VariousCrap]

I want Trout to be an Angel for life.  That should be priority number one for the organization.

However, let's say in Spring Training the Angels offer Trout a huge contract like 10/375 or 10/400 and he turns it down, Eppler has to put him out there and see what type of return he can get.  If Eppler sees an offer he likes, he should take it.  If he doesn't, no biggie because he doesn't have to trade Trout.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Interesting take, if thats the case then shouldnt his current salary be discounted against the budget?

it's all part of one calculation.  the budget is based on their expected top line number.  

I know where you're going with this and the answer is yes, they are already spending more because they have Mike Trout.  So it's already factored in.  

Which is another reason why paying $400 mil and expecting a certain level of on field production is different than paying Zack Cozart 13mil and expecting a certain level of on field production.  

Trout and Ohtani draw fans.  Everyone else's value is almost solely in what they produce to help you win.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

it's all part of one calculation.  the budget is based on their expected top line number.  

I know where you're going with this and the answer is yes, they are already spending more because they have Mike Trout.  So it's already factored in.  

Which is another reason why paying $400 mil and expecting a certain level of on field production is different than paying Zack Cozart 13mil and expecting a certain level of on field production.  

Trout and Ohtani draw fans.  Everyone else's value is almost solely in what they produce to help you win.  

That's why I hate the formulas for salary based on WAR.

From a purely business standpoint, the marketability and popularity of players is not perfectly in line with their on the field performance.

 

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

it's all part of one calculation.  the budget is based on their expected top line number.  

I know where you're going with this and the answer is yes, they are already spending more because they have Mike Trout.  So it's already factored in.  

Which is another reason why paying $400 mil and expecting a certain level of on field production is different than paying Zack Cozart 13mil and expecting a certain level of on field production.  

Trout and Ohtani draw fans.  Everyone else's value is almost solely in what they produce to help you win.  

Essentially what you are saying is that our actual budget is the current budget figure minus Trout?  

[Docwaukee]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Essentially what you are saying is that our actual budget is the current budget figure minus Trout?  

no.  the complete opposite.  

our budget factors in what they think revenue will be like concessions, attendance revenue etc.   The budget is their anticipated costs like mlb player payroll, scouting personnel, travel, concession costs, meals for players, minor league salary and travel, admin costs, coaching salaries etc.  Trout is not a line item on the revenue side.  What I am indirectly saying is that if we didn't have Trout, his salary would be gone but we'd have far less revenue.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

no.  the complete opposite.  

our budget factors in what they think revenue will be like concessions, attendance revenue etc.   The budget is their anticipated costs like mlb player payroll, scouting personnel, travel, concession costs, meals for players, minor league salary and travel, admin costs, coaching salaries etc.  Trout is not a line item on the revenue side.  What I am indirectly saying is that if we didn't have Trout, his salary would be gone but we'd have far less revenue.  

Yes, and im sure it starts with the TV deal revenue which opens with 150M plus any other MLB revenue sharing we may receive.   If Trout pays for himself, then the entirety of the remaining payroll is covered by the TV deal not taking any other revenue stream into account.   
Im generalizing of course, its not that simple, but if what you suggest is true and Trout does pay for himself, shouldnt this club be able to spend far more than it is? 

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yes, and im sure it starts with the TV deal revenue which opens with 150M plus any other MLB revenue sharing we may receive.   If Trout pays for himself, then the entirety of the remaining payroll is covered by the TV deal not taking any other revenue stream into account.   
Im generalizing of course, its not that simple, but if what you suggest is true and Trout does pay for himself, shouldnt this club be able to spend far more than it is? 

we don't get revenue sharing.  we are actually one of the teams that loses money on it.  

I have no idea what the numbers are.  

What I am suggesting is that Trout is a huge fan draw and brings the team a ton of revenue.  My guess is that it's more than what they pay him.  There is no way to calculate that.  

They are spending what they are spending.  I don't know if they could be spending more.  Whatever horseshit math you or I or anyone else tries to put together in order to determine if that's true is pissing in the wind.  

At some point, you're gonna have to accept that payroll is what it is.  If you can't, you're gonna have a miserable time watching a team you think should be doing more based on no real evidence.  

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we don't get revenue sharing.  we are actually one of the teams that loses money on it.  

I have no idea what the numbers are.  

What I am suggesting is that Trout is a huge fan draw and brings the team a ton of revenue.  My guess is that it's more than what they pay him.  There is no way to calculate that.  

They are spending what they are spending.  I don't know if they could be spending more.  Whatever horseshit math you or I or anyone else tries to put together in order to determine if that's true is pissing in the wind.  

At some point, you're gonna have to accept that payroll is what it is.  If you can't, you're gonna have a miserable time watching a team you think should be doing more based on no real evidence.  

Not sure how you can say no evidence.  There are a lot of things we dont know or cant qualify but there are also many, most notably the TV deal, that we most certainly can.

[hangin n wangin]

On 1/3/2019 at 8:07 AM, Stradling said:

Sorry but while Albert is an anchor he isn’t the reason the franchise is where it is.  Ignoring the farm is the reason we are where we are and in my mind it isn’t close. 

Yes, while the farm has been our main problem, Pujols is still a huge problem. He Facking sucks and he’s getting paid a ton of money.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Not sure how you can say no evidence.  There are a lot of things we dont know or cant qualify but there are also many, most notably the TV deal, that we most certainly can.

we don't know the actual numbers.  we probably know about 10% of what we'd need to in order to parse out the line.  We know the raw TV deal number.  We know payroll.  That's it.  

I doubt Arte is losing money.  I have no idea how much he's making.  But I'm not gonna drive myself crazy and stomp my feet because a business man is deciding to turn a profit.  

Why don't you suggest that every player on the Angels take a 10% pay cut so they can get some better players?  

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not sure how you can say no evidence.  There are a lot of things we dont know or cant qualify but there are also many, most notably the TV deal, that we most certainly can.

You should start by correctly valuing how much of their local tv revenue they get to keep, because while the contract may be valued at 150 mil per year, 31% of all local revenue is reallocated into a central fund and split with the other teams..

[Stradling]

9 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

You should start by correctly valuing how much of their local tv revenue they get to keep, because while the contract may be valued at 150 mil per year, 31% of all local revenue is reallocated into a central fund and split with the other teams..

So we’re closer to $100 million?

[Lou]

it's great that the only expense Arte seems to have is player salaries.

[Stradling]

As for whether Trout pays for himself the average ticket at Angel Stadium last year was just over $30.   I highly doubt a million fans buy tickets to see Trout in Anaheim a year.  Yes those people buy stuff but merchandise is another shared revenue item between the owners and the playersleague wife.  Food is shared amongst the team and the vendor.  So it’s not like every dollar brought in is team money.

[Inside Pitch]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So we’re closer to $100 million?

Than 150?   Yeah, probably...  Which is why you see the FG articles had them at the 110-115 range.

[Inside Pitch]

The owners are making a shit ton.... All the owners...  Most arent trying to grow their business as hard as Arte did. 

Every team in MLB has benefited from the Arte ownership years...  Not saying that to try to deflect any criticism people may feel he is due, it's just the reality of the situation.

Owners are killing it.

[jessecrall]

Owning an MLB team during Arte's tenure is like having bought a beach house in Malibu Colony with cash 15 years ago. Even if you don't actually make significant annual profits between taking in rental income and putting out taxes, insurance, improvements, etc, the value of the house has gone up so much that it's well worth the investment. 

[Taylor]

On 1/3/2019 at 6:24 AM, Torridd said:

I don't necessarily see the Angels' success and Trout's extension as synchronous.

I don't think the word you chose is synonymous with the world word you were trying to use.

 

EDIT: I'm a dumbass.

[bped1981]

I have been a big believer in Angels throwing some big $ and Machado and or Harper with the intent to bring a big contract to Trout and say Sign it or we are trading you.

I love trout more than anything, but i believe getting Harper or Machado plus the package that you get from Trout would make the team better than just Trout alone.

I would bet a team like the Dodgers or Yankees would give up a massive haul to have Trout for 2 years.

You could start by asking the dodgers for Buehler and Bellinger plus top 2 prospects in there system....It would hurt my soul to see Trout go anywhere, but ultimately I want to see the angels in the playoffs. With or without Trout.

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, bped1981 said:

I have been a big believer in Angels throwing some big $ and Machado and or Harper with the intent to bring a big contract to Trout and say Sign it or we are trading you.

Worst.

Idea.

EVER.

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I don't think the word you chose is synonymous with the world you were trying to use.

nor the word

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, bped1981 said:

I have been a big believer in Angels throwing some big $ and Machado and or Harper with the intent to bring a big contract to Trout and say Sign it or we are trading you.

I love trout more than anything, but i believe getting Harper or Machado plus the package that you get from Trout would make the team better than just Trout alone.

I would bet a team like the Dodgers or Yankees would give up a massive haul to have Trout for 2 years.

You could start by asking the dodgers for Buehler and Bellinger plus top 2 prospects in there system....It would hurt my soul to see Trout go anywhere, but ultimately I want to see the angels in the playoffs. With or without Trout.

Ok and when Trout says no, you aren’t trading me, then what?

[Pancake Bear]

11 minutes ago, bped1981 said:

I have been a big believer in Angels throwing some big $ and Machado and or Harper with the intent to bring a big contract to Trout and say Sign it or we are trading you.

I love trout more than anything, but i believe getting Harper or Machado plus the package that you get from Trout would make the team better than just Trout alone.

I would bet a team like the Dodgers or Yankees would give up a massive haul to have Trout for 2 years.

You could start by asking the dodgers for Buehler and Bellinger plus top 2 prospects in there system....It would hurt my soul to see Trout go anywhere, but ultimately I want to see the angels in the playoffs. With or without Trout.

Wow. I'm trying to think of a worse, or less realistic idea.

....

....

....

Nope. Got nothing.