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 comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

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

     

IGNORED

OC Register: Angels GM Billy Eppler says they ‘stretched’ budget to land Cody Allen


Recommended Posts

So it turns out I’m wrong.

I read right over the word “excluding” in the middle of the string of what constitutes debt. 

Poorly written, if you ask me. The numbering should start over if it’s a whole different thing. 

Anyway, doesn’t change my opinion that we still don’t really know what the Angels “should” be spending.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

So it turns out I’m wrong.

I read right over the word “excluding” in the middle of the string of what constitutes debt. 

Poorly written, if you ask me. The numbering should start over if it’s a whole different thing. 

Anyway, doesn’t change my opinion that we still don’t really know what the Angels “should” be spending.

 

Interesting.  To be fair, I don't think after careful consideration that I would be surprised to find a different standard for what is categorized as debt in that type of document.  It is a collective bargaining agreement, not a financial or accounting document.

It is fair for the players to expect that the owners do not get themselves so over committed that the health of the organization is threatened.

Seems more organized to not use the word debt for future salary obligations in that document but I guess it wouldn't be outrageous to do so as long as they are perfectly clear about it.

Anyway, all this stuff is pretty tough to nail down not because anyone can or cannot make the right argument.  It is tough to nail down because the financials are not public.

But transaction prices for teams are normally shared.  And that (again) consistently shows that buyers (who see the financials) are willing to pay staggering, shocking prices to be the next owner 

The only thing that would explain that is that the teams are making way, way more money than the normal fans or the media are aware of.

So I fully admit my position is theoretical, but so is the opposing argument.  It just seems to me that it is very, very likely that owners could spend way, way more and be perfectly financially healthy. . . Especially for an owner like Moreno who carries no debt from the acquisition.

 

 

Edited by Dtwncbad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

So I fully admit my position is theoretical, but so is the opposing argument.  It just seems to me that it is very, very likely that owners could spend way, way more and be perfectly financially healthy. . . Especially for an owner like Moreno who carries no debt from the acquisition.

I agree with the basic assumption that owners make "a lot" of money and would still be making "a lot" of money if they paid the players more. But it's all relative and it's a slippery slope to start trying to tell someone how much profit is the right amount for them to make. Who gets to decide that?

I wouldn't want to go into a restaurant and have the waiter look at my clothes and my car and tell me I should order a more expensive bottle of wine because he thinks I can afford it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I agree with the basic assumption that owners make "a lot" of money and would still be making "a lot" of money if they paid the players more. But it's all relative and it's a slippery slope to start trying to tell someone how much profit is the right amount for them to make. Who gets to decide that?

I wouldn't want to go into a restaurant and have the waiter look at my clothes and my car and tell me I should order a more expensive bottle of wine because he thinks I can afford it.

 

The guy with the money.  

Even if the waiter says that to you, you're likely gonna order whatever bottle of wine you please.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

21+7.5+7+7+3.75+10+1.5+1.75+2.15=61.65m

spent on Syndergaard, Loup, Lorenzen, Tepera, Bradley, Iglesias, Duffy, Suzuki and Mayers.  

I'm certainly of the mind that additional money could help improve this team.  But if you were Arte, would you hand out more money for more decisions like these?  And this doesn't even count the terrible decisions made spending the major league min.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

21+7.5+7+7+3.75+10+1.5+1.75+2.15=61.65m

spent on Syndergaard, Loup, Lorenzen, Tepera, Bradley, Iglesias, Duffy, Suzuki and Mayers.  

I'm certainly of the mind that additional money could help improve this team.  But if you were Arte, would you hand out more money for more decisions like these?  And this doesn't even count the terrible decisions made spending the major league min.  

Only when the scouting improves, will those decisions become better ones.

Here’s the kicker though.   Does ANY good GM candidate want to work for Arte Moreno, and will Arte ever allocate the necessary money for the nuts and bolts of a franchise?  

Without that, the scouting won’t be improved, and the results will be rinse and repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Of course if Arte hadn’t allowed them to go years without making any effort towards international scouting and signing then maybe a few of those holes don’t exist to be filled by veteran FAs

This

There’s absolutely no excuse at all for, aside from Ohtani, only Suarez to have come from there over the past decade.

Edited by Angel Oracle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Of course if Arte hadn’t allowed them to go years without making any effort towards international scouting and signing then maybe a few of those holes don’t exist to be filled by veteran FAs

 

49 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

This

There’s absolutely no excuse at all for, aside from Ohtani, only Suarez to have come from there over the past decade.

Ignoring the farm for so long has really hurt the team

Building a strong farm is the key to success and continued pipeline of young cost controlled talent to the team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

21+7.5+7+7+3.75+10+1.5+1.75+2.15=61.65m

spent on Syndergaard, Loup, Lorenzen, Tepera, Bradley, Iglesias, Duffy, Suzuki and Mayers.  

Yeah but...

11 hours ago, mmc said:

Has Perry tried asking Arte to stretch the budget yet?

Removing Mayer's 2.15 mil it seems he was able to spend more per year on FA's this one offseason than Eppler was able to stretch for in his first three seasons as GM combined -- and that's including both the first year of Cozart and Upton.

But Jiminy Christmas that 2019 free agent batch was awful...  Shot yourself in the foot there Billy.

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...