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

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

how much do you pay him?

 

[Docwaukee]

4 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

6 years of Harper or Machado in their prime (27-32) will be better than giving someone 10 years from 32-42 no matter the situation.

the Angels could, by way of AAV, afford one of them. Plus, if the Angels “went over for the right player”, that would be doable given the prospect offset the price in a few years and Cozart, Pujols and Calhoun come off the books. That’s a potential of $56M leaving the books. 

I’m not saying the Angels should have signed one of them, but I’m just surprised we’re afraid of taking a risk because of past mistakes. 

Harper brings a guy with Bery good OBP numbers to hit in front of Trout and most importantly brings the eyes of the east coast and marketing revenue into Arte’s pockets. It’s a no-brainer to take that gamble on a 26 year old. If it was easy to take that gamble on a 32 year old for marketing purposes and a drug addict, then why do you run away when you have a chance at signing someone entering their prime that will direct attention and sales to the organization? 

Marketing Trout, Ohtani, Harper and Pujols  should be an owners’ dream. 

no one is giving out contracts for 10 yrs to 32yo players anymore.  Arte isn't averse to risk because of past mistakes.  

a contract to Harper or Machado right now has a strong potential of not helping the team enough in the next two years.  then there's the risk they'd opt out after the 3rd.  

that's what they're looking at.  paying either 90 mil in the first three years and having it amount to jack squat because of the current construct of the team.  

even if you could start the off season over and commit to targeting one of the two, you be in full limbo right now.  You'd have no idea whether you could get one and how much you'd have to spend.  Or let's say you add one of them to the current team.  Then you'd not only have a 10m 4th ofer/ back 1bman (if you sign Harper) or a guy who has professed that hustling isn't part of his game and he's a known PIA (who knows how that plays out in the clubhouse with machado), you'd also still have a shit ton of risk surrounding 5 positions, 3 rotations spots, and half of your bullpen.  

Let's be realistic.  This team could vie for the 2nd WC or finish with 80 wins again pretty easily.  If i'm the dude handing out the contracts, I'm not doubling down by giving out a big ass contract for a player that still comes with a fair amount of risk.  

A good example is the 2015 off season.  We had a much better pitching staff on paper and needed upgrades at C, LF, and 2b.  We had a potential rotation of Richards, Skaggs, Shoe, Santiago, Weaver, and Heaney.  We also needed a couple of pen upgrades.  Yet payroll was maxed out.  I was pretty annoyed that we didn't upgrade any of those spots.  Turns out the pitching went hell and any commitment to a LFer or 2bman would likely have been for not.  

We're in a different situation now but jumping the gun has a higher risk of being wrong than right.  

[jsnpritchett]

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

But again this is boring stuff.

I agree.

[Capital_Dave]

I'm just here for the @Jeff Fletcher replies.  He's likely the only one here with an informed opinion.

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Capital_Dave said:

I'm just here for the @Jeff Fletcher replies.  He's likely the only one here with an informed opinion.

you should follow him on Twitter 

[eligrba]

20 minutes ago, Lou said:

you should follow him on Twitter 

Or, just follow him.

[Lou]

15 hours ago, Lou said:

 revenue does not equal profit 

.

11 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

And neither does cash flow.

 

but I'm not advocating that Arte spend more money based on cash flow, as you are based on revenue. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes.  And in that horrible scenario she goes from being so rich she doesn't know what to do with her money to someone so rich she doesn't know what to do with her money.

You changed your argument from “losing money in the short term can be profitable in the long term” to “Who cares? She’s rich!”

Also, I was reminded this morning of MLB’s debt-service rule. I don’t know the exact details on the rule and I obviously don’t know the specifics of the Angels numbers, but I do recall a couple years it was an issue for the Dodgers, who are presumably worth much more than the Angels. 

Bottom line is there a lot of variables and rules involved that none of us know, so no on really can say how much money they should be spending. 

[Lou]

7 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Sooooo youre saying cody allen comes with tinted windows and ground effects?

I like it.

 

[Dtwncbad]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

You changed your argument from “losing money in the short term can be profitable in the long term” to “Who cares? She’s rich!”

Also, I was reminded this morning of MLB’s debt-service rule. I don’t know the exact details on the rule and I obviously don’t know the specifics of the Angels numbers, but I do recall a couple years it was an issue for the Dodgers, who are presumably worth much more than the Angels. 

Bottom line is there a lot of variables and rules involved that none of us know, so no on really can say how much money they should be spending. 

Seriously Jeff bringing up the MLB debt-service rule in this context is getting silly and desperate.  The Dodgers were leveraged to a dangerous point with massive amounts of debt threatening the team's solvency.  Arte has ZERO debt on the team.

Your point here us literally silly.

 

 

 

[stormngt]

18 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I believe the number I had been telling people was $30M.

They spent around $37M on Harvey, Cahill, Allen, Bour and Lucroy (adding in reaching some of the incentives) and they saved around $7M by getting rid of Shoemaker and Parker.

I understand the logic to stay under the cap.  I do not understand the logic to be 20 or 30 million under the cap.  Are we a large market team or not?  

[angelsnationtalk]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

no one is giving out contracts for 10 yrs to 32yo players anymore.  Arte isn't averse to risk because of past mistakes.  

a contract to Harper or Machado right now has a strong potential of not helping the team enough in the next two years.  then there's the risk they'd opt out after the 3rd.  

that's what they're looking at.  paying either 90 mil in the first three years and having it amount to jack squat because of the current construct of the team.  

even if you could start the off season over and commit to targeting one of the two, you be in full limbo right now.  You'd have no idea whether you could get one and how much you'd have to spend.  Or let's say you add one of them to the current team.  Then you'd not only have a 10m 4th ofer/ back 1bman (if you sign Harper) or a guy who has professed that hustling isn't part of his game and he's a known PIA (who knows how that plays out in the clubhouse with machado), you'd also still have a shit ton of risk surrounding 5 positions, 3 rotations spots, and half of your bullpen.  

Let's be realistic.  This team could vie for the 2nd WC or finish with 80 wins again pretty easily.  If i'm the dude handing out the contracts, I'm not doubling down by giving out a big ass contract for a player that still comes with a fair amount of risk.  

A good example is the 2015 off season.  We had a much better pitching staff on paper and needed upgrades at C, LF, and 2b.  We had a potential rotation of Richards, Skaggs, Shoe, Santiago, Weaver, and Heaney.  We also needed a couple of pen upgrades.  Yet payroll was maxed out.  I was pretty annoyed that we didn't upgrade any of those spots.  Turns out the pitching went hell and any commitment to a LFer or 2bman would likely have been for not.  

We're in a different situation now but jumping the gun has a higher risk of being wrong than right.  

I'm not saying they should give him 10 years, but I'm just saying it becomes more justifiable compared to handing a 32 year old that type of contract. The only thing Arte should learned is to not dish out massive contracts to players exiting their prime. The one thing that I think is blow out of proportion is all these one year contracts. I get we are saving for our prospects to take over and for 2020-2025 to be solid, but the front office seems super scared for anything more than one year...

The Angels are in a different spot now. We haven't had such a deep farm system like this in quite some time. So, spending for talent and pairing it with talented prospects could work better. I never believe when people say our payroll is maxed out.. We've never spent up to the luxury tax and only cap ourselves with an internal budget. We're like the Anaheim Ducks of baseball. An owner who is worth 3+ Billion dollars, one of the largest TV contracts in baseball that revenues the Angels $150M PER YEAR and a growing market with Ohtani, best player in baseball (Trout), and the possibility of a new stadium lease allowing Arte to make serious profits by turning the platinum triangle into an LA Live? Come on..... 

Like I said, I get your point. I just get a little disappointed when I hear the Angels trying to stay under budget and be a mediocre team with a 5% chance of a wildcard spot when you have the best player in baseball who's dying to be in the playoffs. If we were the Athletics then i'd understand.... But we're not.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Seriously Jeff bringing up the MLB debt-service rule in this context is getting silly and desperate.  The Dodgers were leveraged to a dangerous point with massive amounts of debt threatening the team's solvency.  Arte has ZERO debt on the team.

Your point here us literally silly.

 

 

 

Owing $800 million in salaries wouldn’t be debt?

Then Arte should sign Harper, Machado, Kuechel, Kimbrel and extend Trout for about $2 billion. Then after the Angels win the WS he can rip all those contracts up and sell the team

Edited January 22, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[Jeff Fletcher]

53 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I understand the logic to stay under the cap.  I do not understand the logic to be 20 or 30 million under the cap.  Are we a large market team or not?  

The logic is it’s all he wants to spend. 

Like I said before, if you go to a car dealership and say you want to spend X and the dealer says “oh I give you permission to spend more,” it doesn’t mean you can or should. It’s still up to whatever you think you can afford.

The luxury tax is unrelated to the Angels budget. 

Now if you want to argue the Angels budget should be something else based on your assumptions about what they make and spend, go ahead. Just don’t use the luxury tax as part of the discussion. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Seriously Jeff bringing up the MLB debt-service rule in this context is getting silly and desperate.  The Dodgers were leveraged to a dangerous point with massive amounts of debt threatening the team's solvency.  Arte has ZERO debt on the team.

Your point here us literally silly.

 

 

 

But he’s right about you changing your argument. 

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

I understand the logic to stay under the cap.  I do not understand the logic to be 20 or 30 million under the cap.  Are we a large market team or not?  

Is Houston?  Atlanta?

[T.G.]

It's really quite simple.

It seems to me that Eppler and Arte have a clear plan.  They want to sign Trout long term.  That's the only big money, long term deal they're willing to do.  That's the #1 priority.  They're not going to sign Harper or Machado because their priority is extending Mike Trout, period.  They're keeping their FOCUS on the Trout extension.  Getting caught up in the Machado/Harper sweepstakes would alter that focus.  Trout is a totally known commodity to the team.  They know him better than anyone else in baseball.  They don't know Machado or Harper.  They represent greater risk.  Both Harper and Machado have tremendous upside, but they also have their warts - be it inconsistency from year to year or attitude or whatever. 

 

 

[Torridd]

18 minutes ago, True Grich said:

It's really quite simple.

It seems to me that Eppler and Arte have a clear plan.  They want to sign Trout long term.  That's the only big money, long term deal they're willing to do.  That's the #1 priority.  They're not going to sign Harper or Machado because their priority is extending Mike Trout, period.  They're keeping their FOCUS on the Trout extension.  Getting caught up in the Machado/Harper sweepstakes would alter that focus.  Trout is a totally known commodity to the team.  They know him better than anyone else in baseball.  They don't know Machado or Harper.  They represent greater risk.  Both Harper and Machado have tremendous upside, but they also have their warts - be it inconsistency from year to year or attitude or whatever. 

 

 

TG, I agree that Trout would have to be a priority, but if they had an interest in Harper/Machado couldn't they just tell Trout? Would their shift in focus be a bad thing?

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

.

 

but I'm not advocating that Arte spend more money based on cash flow, as you are based on revenue. 

I have not made one justification for spending on revenue.  Not one.

[Dtwncbad]

41 minutes ago, Stradling said:

But he’s right about you changing your argument. 

I disagree.  There was no argument change.  I simply ADDED that in the worst case scenario that spending a little more to build the brand doesn't work, Arte will not suffer any significant impact financially.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Owing $800 million in salaries wouldn’t be debt?

Then Arte should sign Harper, Machado, Kuechel, Kimbrel and extend Trout for about $2 billion. Then after the Angels win the WS he can rip all those contracts up and sell the team

No Jeff.  Future salary obligation is not debt, and would not be considered debt by any professional financial analyst.

It is salary expense.

If you have to BORROW to cover the expense, then what you borrow would be debt.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

I understand the logic to stay under the cap.  I do not understand the logic to be 20 or 30 million under the cap.  Are we a large market team or not?  

the cap is an arbitrary number set by MLB and has nothing to do with the individual finances for each team.  No team uses the cap as their budget unless it ends up as random coincidence.  it's just something teams have to manage.  

[Blarg]

The brand is built around Ohtani and Trout. 

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

No Jeff.  Future salary obligation is not debt, and would not be considered debt by any professional financial analyst.

It is salary expense.

If you have to BORROW to cover the expense, then what you borrow would be debt.

Dt - you might actually enjoy checking out the annual reports from Liberty Media Corp on the Atlanta Braves.  Not that is has any actual bearing on this discussion but it does provide a little insight.   

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Dochalo said:

Dt - you might actually enjoy checking out the annual reports from Liberty Media Corp on the Atlanta Braves.  Not that is has any actual bearing on this discussion but it does provide a little insight on how some of this works.   

Thanks I will check it out.