Do you think the current Angel's payroll is satisfactory?

[Docwaukee]

The last 3 or 4 times I have listened to the talking heads on MLB radio, I have heard various discussions where they are wondering what the team is doing and why they aren't spending more.  It was a question raised by more than just one host but 3 or 4 different on various shows.  

Personally, I think it's reasonable but I know that some think it should be a lot higher.  

Where do you stand?  

[failos]

It's a valid concern since this team has usually been at the forefront of big name FA signings.

[Stradling]

Here is my thoughts on it.  Regularly it is perfectly fine considering our farm isn’t quite where it needs to be for us to be considered a threat.  That being said when we make mistakes it would be nice to extend the budget.  I completely understand why he wouldn’t, but it would be nice from a fan point of view.  

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Here is my thoughts on it.  Regularly it is perfectly fine considering our farm isn’t quite where it needs to be for us to be considered a threat.  That being said when we make mistakes it would be nice to extend the budget.  I completely understand why he wouldn’t, but it would be nice from a fan point of view.  

That's pretty much how I feel as well.  Even if we're filling spots on 1yr or maybe 2yr deals.  Not asking them to commit tons of long term money, but at least complete the team a little more thoroughly.  I get that pen pieces can be risky, but going with guys like Gia, Espinosa, Nava, etc as we have in the past was very much a bummer.  

[angelsnationtalk]

To be honest, and I think I speak for many Angels fans, I think our budget is a complete and utter joke. In real terms, we could sign Harper and still not have to worry about paying the tax. With global recognition as Arte being the first Spanish owner and now Ohtani, the Angels are in an incredible financial and eye-catching spot to stand out. Yes, I understand that we could be waiting in the back of the room until our prospects are ready, but Arte himself said he will always put a winning team on the field or else he’d step away..... well..... we haven’t won a playoff game in 10 years so..... I know we could be waiting for players such as Adell, Canning, Jones and Marsh. Problem is everything we think of them is pure projection based on comparisons and stats. Sure, they could be a cost-effective way of spending minimum for a superstar, or they could be a Brandon Wood.

Fact of the matter is we have the best player in the world and maybe one day one of the best players to have ever stepped on the field. Yes, long term he could be a winner with us, but it is a complete and utter disgrace to the fans and to Mike Trout to have never won a playoff game with him. Hearing the “Pujols contract” excuse is also the biggest joke I’ve ever heard. Arte knew exactly what he was getting himself into. The man is worth $3 billion dollars so don’t tell me we have nothing to spend.

To sum it up, that’s what I think of our payroll. I like building the farm to an extent, but holding it down to be a top 5? Sure it looks great on paper, but there’s no proven talent at all. Staying top 10-15 works for me.

[Dtwncbad]

The subject of luxury tax number being different from actual payroll has been beat to death.

But my issue is I don't like the idea that when actual payroll was lower than the luxury tax number, the team benefitted from that difference in their cash budget.

Yet when it is reversed, we are told to respect that the actual salary expense is higher than the luxury tax number so that we don't expect more spending.

That's annoying but lets just put all that into the blah blah blah category and instead look at it this way:

I am only willing to put so much money into a 1986 Monte Carlo in preparation for the car show.

When I suddenly have a 1962 Ferrari 250GTO, my willingness to spend on it in preparation for the car show absolutely should be different.

I want the organization to always keep a steady eye on the farm system so that the team never is mired in that horrible position again.

But the reality is the Angels have Mike Trout in his prime.  I would think this team would spend far more money (especially on these 26 year old type free agents) to put the talent around the guy.

Moreno cannot go broke spending on this team.  He can only get richer slower.

They could have signed Corbin and Harper on top of what they actually did and Moreno would still be getting richer every single year.

The argument about sticking to a budget (that seems to always be about the same) is annoying.  It is not normal to have Mike Trout.  Act accordingly.

And the idea that if this team had a negative cash flow of $30m that it would "hurt" the team or the owner is absurd.  When you are uber wealthy, you manage the balance sheet, not the statement of cash flows.

In 50 years, what will matter? That the Angels achieved a neutral cash flow for Trout's career or if they stacked the team and won some World Series?

And what is your franchise worth when you build a legacy of postseasons?

You get it back.

 

[floplag]

My position i think is fairly clear, i absolutely think they could spend more, much more, if they chose to and it is my belief that they are capable of doing so.   

I base this on the fact that very few teams have the financial situation we do, which is to say no debt, self insured, a strong TV deal, excellent attendance year after year, investors, and a product whose values has increased 10 times over since it was purchased.   Let that sink in for a sec, the value of this club has made Arte and the investors 1 Billion dollars on paper, 1 Billion.  We have the best player on the planet who largely pays for a lot of his own contract value.  Add all that up and its hard to understand why we dont press the luxury tax levels payroll wise and are finding ourselves capped 50 million beneath it.

@Stradling and @Dochalo have it basically right, the one thing i disagree with is that it isnt a "it would be nice" thing to me, in my view its what they should do if they are financially capable of doing so, which i believe they are. 

No, i have no knowledge of the finances, noone does thanks to the antiquated anti trust laws and other such nonsense that protect it, but it is well known that revenues have increased across the board and have likely outpaced salaries, i read somewhere the goal of the last CBA was a 50/50 split between salaries and profits, which has apparently now swung to greater than 60/40 in the owners favor.  Forbes magazine for example has put out some very good articles regarding baseball in general in that regard to as much detail as they can. 

As a fan i think they should put winning over profits.  Im not asking them to put 100% back, Im not asking them to do anything that costs the penalties or anything like that, im simply asking them to do what was promised, to make the best effort to win.  I dont make any money either way but i get a lot more enjoyment from my fandom and am more inclined to spend more to support the team if the team makes more effort for me as a fan. 

[Stradling]

Arte has investors?  

[ettin]

Agree with most of the above. I would note that the Angels have consistently had one of the largest payrolls in MLB since Moreno took the helm and that has been very nice. That being said, the mistakes of the past still linger and Trout's current contractual obligation is expiring in two years barring the likely extension so Arte needs to think about striking which will involve spending. I think the Angels are prepping for the first half and will commit more if they feel they are in the race as we approach the trade deadline. It is the best balance of risk versus reward in all probability, barring a big signing this off-season.

[Erstad Grit]

Half this board would have signed heyward a few years back.  Arte is maintaining he's willing to spend on the right player.  Apparently they thought Upton was that guy.  Can't blame the guy too be hesitant after the coin he blew on pujols and Hamilton.  Our payroll has been top second tier for a while now and I'm ok with that.  

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Erstad Grit said:

Half this board would have signed heyward a few years back.  Arte is maintaining he's willing to spend on the right player.  Apparently they thought Upton was that guy.  Can't blame the guy too be hesitant after the coin he blew on pujols and Hamilton.  Our payroll has been top second tier for a while now and I'm ok with that.  

I wanted Heyward.  I heard we offered more than he actually got.  He went to the team that was ready to win now.  We are fortunate.  

[floplag]

10 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Arte has investors?  

I thought i read that somewhere, it could be wrong to be fair.  Even without the rest is pretty telling dont you think?

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

I thought i read that somewhere, it could be wrong to be fair.  Even without the rest is pretty telling dont you think?

I could say the exact opposite.  Him not spending more money is pretty telling don’t you think?  

[angelsnationtalk]

30 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The subject of luxury tax number being different from actual payroll has been beat to death.

But my issue is I don't like the idea that when actual payroll was lower than the luxury tax number, the team benefitted from that difference in their cash budget.

Yet when it is reversed, we are told to respect that the actual salary expense is higher than the luxury tax number so that we don't expect more spending.

That's annoying but lets just put all that into the blah blah blah category and instead look at it this way:

I am only willing to put so much money into a 1986 Monte Carlo in preparation for the car show.

When I suddenly have a 1962 Ferrari 250GTO, my willingness to spend on it in preparation for the car show absolutely should be different.

I want the organization to always keep a steady eye on the farm system so that the team never is mired in that horrible position again.

But the reality is the Angels have Mike Trout in his prime.  I would think this team would spend far more money (especially on these 26 year old type free agents) to put the talent around the guy.

Moreno cannot go broke spending on this team.  He can only get richer slower.

They could have signed Corbin and Harper on top of what they actually did and Moreno would still be getting richer every single year.

The argument about sticking to a budget (that seems to always be about the same) is annoying.  It is not normal to have Mike Trout.  Act accordingly.

And the idea that if this team had a negative cash flow of $30m that it would "hurt" the team or the owner is absurd.  When you are uber wealthy, you manage the balance sheet, not the statement of cash flows.

In 50 years, what will matter? That the Angels achieved a neutral cash flow for Trout's career or if they stacked the team and won some World Series?

And what is your franchise worth when you build a legacy of postseasons?

You get it back.

 

You said it perfectly. 

[angelsnationtalk]

22 minutes ago, floplag said:

My position i think is fairly clear, i absolutely think they could spend more, much more, if they chose to and it is my belief that they are capable of doing so.   

I base this on the fact that very few teams have the financial situation we do, which is to say no debt, self insured, a strong TV deal, excellent attendance year after year, investors, and a product whose values has increased 10 times over since it was purchased.   Let that sink in for a sec, the value of this club has made Arte and the investors 1 Billion dollars on paper, 1 Billion.  We have the best player on the planet who largely pays for a lot of his own contract value.  Add all that up and its hard to understand why we dont press the luxury tax levels payroll wise and are finding ourselves capped 50 million beneath it.

@Stradling and @Dochalo have it basically right, the one thing i disagree with is that it isnt a "it would be nice" thing to me, in my view its what they should do if they are financially capable of doing so, which i believe they are. 

No, i have no knowledge of the finances, noone does thanks to the antiquated anti trust laws and other such nonsense that protect it, but it is well known that revenues have increased across the board and have likely outpaced salaries, i read somewhere the goal of the last CBA was a 50/50 split between salaries and profits, which has apparently now swung to greater than 60/40 in the owners favor.  Forbes magazine for example has put out some very good articles regarding baseball in general in that regard to as much detail as they can. 

As a fan i think they should put winning over profits.  Im not asking them to put 100% back, Im not asking them to do anything that costs the penalties or anything like that, im simply asking them to do what was promised, to make the best effort to win.  I dont make any money either way but i get a lot more enjoyment from my fandom and am more inclined to spend more to support the team if the team makes more effort for me as a fan. 

You said it well. "50 million beneath it". I HIGHLY doubt that Arte himself loses any money. The Angels are their own person and Arte's money that he pays the players with comes from the Angels not Bank of America Arte Moreno. Mike Trout is waiting and this is the time to step the hell up and get it done.

Also, Eppler saying "top 5 farm system" means we need to trade players for some prospects as well. Where the hell are those trades then?

Something just doesn't add up. Either we have some surprise waiting, or Eppler is just losing his mind. 

[floplag]

Just now, Stradling said:

I could say the exact opposite.  Him not spending more money is pretty telling don’t you think?  

You say that as it supports your view, but justify it. 

We dont own any networks, as far as i know we have no stadium costs or outstanding renovation issues aside from the lease itself, most of the stuff listed in the Yankees article as eating into their profits doesn't seem to be relevant to us at least not on that scale.

Our team payroll topped 100M for the first time in what 2004 i think it was.  in 15 years weve gone up 60M, while the teams value went up by a billion.    Those 2 numbers dont jive.  Worst possible case scenario he could damn sure get a loan against that to balance things for a couple years till bad money drops even if im wrong as he has equity up the wazoo. 

No sarcasm, no bullshit, help me understand why you think this team cant do more?   

[angelsnationtalk]

13 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Half this board would have signed heyward a few years back.  Arte is maintaining he's willing to spend on the right player.  Apparently they thought Upton was that guy.  Can't blame the guy too be hesitant after the coin he blew on pujols and Hamilton.  Our payroll has been top second tier for a while now and I'm ok with that.  

Upton is not that guy. Lazy defense and a terrible arm in the outfield. He should be our first basemen so would could have made a run at Brantley, Harper or Pollock. I just never why he'd be hesitant on players that are 26 years old when he signs guys that were 32 year old. That's 6 years of someones prime. I'd rather eat the last 3 years of a 10-year contract than eat 9 years of what Pujols got. 

Like i've said earlier in this thread.... It's a load of shit if Arte or Eppler is afraid to dish out money to young talent. If he's afraid then he shouldn't sign Trout cuz he's about to be the biggest investment he's ever made.

This should have been the offseason where the Angels puffed their chests after puffing it back 7 years ago with Pujols. It's nothing but a disgrace for them to sit around with baby 1 year contracts. Utter disgrace.  

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

You said it well. "50 million beneath it". I HIGHLY doubt that Arte himself loses any money. The Angels are their own person and Arte's money that he pays the players with comes from the Angels not Bank of America Arte Moreno. Mike Trout is waiting and this is the time to step the hell up and get it done.

Also, Eppler saying "top 5 farm system" means we need to trade players for some prospects as well. Where the hell are those trades then?

Something just doesn't add up. Either we have some surprise waiting, or Eppler is just losing his mind. 

its literally impossible for him to be losing money.  Even if i concede or am convinced we might lose money on a given season, which i dont beleive but lets say im wrong, the value of this club has grown to over a billion dollars in the 15 years Arte has owned this club, he paid 180 million.  

[angelsnationtalk]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

You say that as it supports your view, but justify it. 

We dont own any networks, as far as i know we have no stadium costs or outstanding renovation issues aside from the lease itself, most of the stuff listed in the Yankees article as eating into their profits doesn't seem to be relevant to us at least not on that scale.

Our team payroll topped 100M for the first time in what 2004 i think it was.  in 15 years weve gone up 60M, while the teams value went up by a billion.    Those 2 numbers dont jive.  Worst possible case scenario he could damn sure get a loan against that to balance things for a couple years till bad money drops even if im wrong as he has equity up the wazoo. 

No sarcasm, no bullshit, help me understand why you think this team cant do more?   

We can do more. Unfortunately "business" has overtaken wanting to win. Arte will never lose money being the owner. The only thing that loses money "technically" is the Angels. Arte can spend whenever he wants and however he wants..... He just needs to wake up and do it. 

[angelsnationtalk]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

its literally impossible for him to be losing money.  Even if i concede or am convinced we might lose money on a given season, which i dont beleive but lets say im wrong, the value of this club has grown to over a billion dollars in the 15 years Arte has owned this club, he paid 180 million.  

I almost responded to you with exact same thing haha.

I believe you. The Angels are their own person. Sure, there's an owner, but the Angels are paying the contract not Arte Moreno. 

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

You say that as it supports your view, but justify it. 

We dont own any networks, as far as i know we have no stadium costs or outstanding renovation issues aside from the lease itself, most of the stuff listed in the Yankees article as eating into their profits doesn't seem to be relevant to us at least not on that scale.

Our team payroll topped 100M for the first time in what 2004 i think it was.  in 15 years weve gone up 60M, while the teams value went up by a billion.    Those 2 numbers dont jive.  Worst possible case scenario he could damn sure get a loan against that to balance things for a couple years till bad money drops even if im wrong as he has equity up the wazoo. 

No sarcasm, no bullshit, help me understand why you think this team cant do more?   

Sorry but owning the network would be a plus.  That is added revenue.   He doesn’t get that money until he sells the team.  I owned a house, I bought it for $360k, at one point it was worth $800k.  I was not able to spend more money because of it.  

[floplag]

Just now, Stradling said:

Sorry but owning the network would be a plus.  That is added revenue.  

I would have thought so as well but i listed it as according to the yankee article which listed it under the "where is the money going" section.

[Stradling]

Just now, floplag said:

I would have thought so as well but i listed it as according to the yankee article which listed it under the "where is the money going" section.

I added to that post.  

[Hubs]

1 hour ago, failos said:

It's a valid concern since this team has usually been at the forefront of big name FA signings.

They in their nearly 60 year history have signed 6 major free agents? 7?

In the last 30 years:

Mo Vaughan

Vlad Guerrero

Bartolo Colon

Torrii Hunter

Albert Pujols

CJ Wilson

Josh Hamilton

 

 

[Lou]

it amazes me that (seemingly) intelligent men think the only expense Arte has is player salaries.