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

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

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. 

+1

If Arte is still say $40 million under the threshold after 2019, with Trout already signed to a new deal and 3B is still an issue, can you see Arte making a serious attempt to sign FA Arenado a year from now?    It probably is a 50-50 proposition.   As rock solid and consistent as Arenado is, very few big name FAs truly prosper for years after signing a new deal.  Although if anyone was capable of doing well for several years, it would be Arenado.

[IEAngelsfan]

43 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. 

 

 

I completely agree as far as Trout being the priority.

Oh, and with Machado, it's more like herpes than warts.

[T.G.]

27 minutes ago, Torridd said:

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?

We can guesstimate that Trout will cost at least $300 million and most likely higher.  Although we don't really know.  I just don't think it's likely that they'll have two mega contracts on top of the one they already have with Pujols.  It doesn't seem realistic.  Putting additional resources into either Machado or Harper would diminish their ability to sign Trout - or at least, I think it would.  Again, I don't know.

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, True Grich said:

We can guesstimate that Trout will cost at least $300 million and most likely higher.  Although we don't really know.  I just don't think it's likely that they'll have two mega contracts on top of the one they already have with Pujols.  It doesn't seem realistic.  Putting additional resources into either Machado or Harper would diminish their ability to sign Trout - or at least, I think it would.  Again, I don't know.

You absolutely may be right because we don't get to see the actual financials.

But we do get to see some critical pieces like the rate of revenue growth versus the rate of salary expense growth.

I like how you said "I think" in your point.  I will mirror.

"I think" spending considerably more is very viable for many teams and "I think" they don't want to in part because it will reveal this new level of viable spending.

It isn't a reckless suspicion.  The owner have been proven to collude in the past.

To be clear the luxury tax is in place so I don't think this is necessarily "collusion" exactly, but the concept is the same.  The owner collectively do not want to share their financials.

"I think" the owners could pay a whole lot more than the current luxury tax and remain extremely profitable.

One more point.  How do we explain the gargantuan rise in team prices when they sell?  Well guess who gets to see the real financials?  The buyer.

What does common sense tell you about that?

 

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[T.G.]

Does MLB have the highest payrolls in all of sports?  I really don't know.  It seems to me that having two mega contracts (Trout and Pujols) is unprecedented in all of sports?  Again, I don't know.  Adding a third would be shocking, IMO - maybe not if the Yankees did that - but the Angels?  Oh yeah... it would be beyond shocking.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Does MLB have the highest payrolls in all of sports?  I really don't know.  It seems to me that having two mega contracts (Trout and Pujols) is unprecedented in all of sports?  Again, I don't know.  Adding a third would be shocking, IMO - maybe not if the Yankees did that - but the Angels?  Oh yeah... it would be beyond shocking.

The Nats have lots of huge contracts and they are still considered a possible landing spot for Harper, AND to extend Rendon at another huge commitment.

[stormngt]

13 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

100% incorrect.  Sorry Jeff.  I respect what you do but the finance and accounting world would entirely disagree that it only matters if you sell.

 

There is a big difference between net wealth and income.

There is a difference between asset value and income.

If you bought a house for 200K and the value of the house increases to 1 million.  You still have the same cash flow.  I can't start spending part of that 800k profit until it becomes liquid.

[Dtwncbad]

The luxury tax was sold to everyone as a way to make it more fair to the lower revenue teams, as if the richer owners will be frustrated that they are capped and can't spend more to hoard talent.

My personal opinion is this whole thing is the opposite.

The Rays are not signing Harper no matter what.  Now whether the Yankees spend $30m per season on him or $50m is irrelevant to the Rays.

But the Yankees sure would love an environment where they can be limited in what they spend on the next mega superstar.  They are the ones saving money.

I think the luxury tax is far more a wink wink for the rich owners than it is to help the less rich owners.

[Docwaukee]

10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

You absolutely may be right because we don't get to see the actual financials.

But we do get to see some critical pieces like the rate of revenue growth versus the rate of salary expense growth.

I like how you said "I think" in your point.  I will mirror.

"I think" spending considerably more is very viable for many teams and "I think" they don't want to in part because it will reveal this new level of viable spending.

It isn't a reckless suspicion.  The owner have been proven to collude in the past.

To be clear the luxury tax is in place so I don't think this is necessarily "collusion" exactly, but the concept is the same.  The owner collectively do not want to share their financials.

"I think" the owners could pay a whole lot more than the current luxury tax and remain extremely profitable.

One more point.  How do we explain the gargantuan rise in team prices when they sell?  Well guess who gets to see the real financials?  The buyer.

What does common sense tell you about that?

 

 

I don't think anyone would argue that the owners aren't making money.  

the argument seems to be that Arte should take a risk and spend a bunch of money on a high risk investment because he's rich enough and what's the big deal if he get's richer a little less quickly.  I think that's a really hard sell for any business owner.  

I sure they have a Machado/Harper spreadsheet that shows what payroll/expenses would look like and where attendance would have to be as well as how much playoff revenue would need to be generated in order to justify making such a move.  

Maybe Eppler's ability to rebuild the farm so fast kept us from getting Machado.  

 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

There is a big difference between net wealth and income.

There is a difference between asset value and income.

If you bought a house for 200K and the value of the house increases to 1 million.  You still have the same cash flow.  I can't start spending part of that 800k profit until it becomes liquid.

And if you want to buy new carpet, you can either pay $10k cash, or you can borrow the $10k at 20% credit card rates, or you can borrow at 8% with your impressive personal financial statement with your million dollar home, or you can take out an equity loan for $10k at probably 4%.

You do not have to sell the house to benefit from the equity.

I would rather have a million dollar house with a $10k loan against it to pay for new carpet than have a million dollar house free and clear that needs carpet.

[stormngt]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

And if you want to buy new carpet, you can either pay $10k cash, or you can borrow the $10k at 20% credit card rates, or you can borrow at 8% with your impressive personal financial statement with your million dollar home, or you can take out an equity loan for $10k at probably 4%.

You do not have to sell the house to benefit from the equity.

I would rather have a million dollar house with a $10k loan against it to pay for new carpet than have a million dollar house free and clear that needs carpet.

you don't take equity out of your home unless there is a better investment opportunity available.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

I don't think anyone would argue that the owners aren't making money.  

the argument seems to be that Arte should take a risk and spend a bunch of money on a high risk investment because he's rich enough and what's the big deal if he get's richer a little less quickly.  I think that's a really hard sell for any business owner.  

I sure they have a Machado/Harper spreadsheet that shows what payroll/expenses would look like and where attendance would have to be as well as how much playoff revenue would need to be generated in order to justify making such a move.  

Maybe Eppler's ability to rebuild the farm so fast kept us from getting Machado.  

 

I love your post.  Look I am am an Arte Moreno fan overall.  He has been a good owner and I wouldn't want to roll the dice hoping for something better.

I am simply saying as a fan, there are some opportunities I wish he were more aggressive on.

Arte definitely has made some ballsy signings in the past that no Angel fan thought was remotely possible.  I dont recall anyone ever believing the Angel's coukd afford to roll out a $250m contract for Pujols.

The Angels will easily survive that disaster.

Lesson learned.  By to me the lesson was not to avoid a big obligation.  It was avoid a big obligation with a player over the hill.

Harper is only 26 and he could play RF now and move to 1B when Adell is ready.  The Angels would be way more exciting now and Harper is plenty young enough to be a beast MOTO for this next era when the youngsters are here.  And I dont think for one second it would hurt the team financially when you look at the rate of revenue growth versus the rate of salary growth in MLB.  The blnumbers strongly suggest the owners are sandbagging and getting over on the players.

But we don't know for sure since we dont see the real financials.  We can only suspect, and I suspect.

Other can disagree and that's cool.

 

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The luxury tax was sold to everyone as a way to make it more fair to the lower revenue teams, as if the richer owners will be frustrated that they are capped and can't spend more to hoard talent.

My personal opinion is this whole thing is the opposite.

The Rays are not signing Harper no matter what.  Now whether the Yankees spend $30m per season on him or $50m is irrelevant to the Rays.

But the Yankees sure would love an environment where they can be limited in what they spend on the next mega superstar.  They are the ones saving money.

I think the luxury tax is far more a wink wink for the rich owners than it is to help the less rich owners.

I think it just forced the large market teams to rethink the way the get and stay good.  I honestly think that was going to happen at some point anyway though as more teams adopted the develop model over the buy it model.  

the teams that are truly at fault here are the tankers.  

You have to give Arte some credit for maintaining a high payroll even while the team was rebuilding.  He's done a hell of a lot more than others in supporting player salaries than most other teams.  It's an atrocity for teams like the Cubs or Phills to have dropped to where they did recently.  

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, stormngt said:

you don't take equity out of your home unless there is a better investment opportunity available.  

You don't live in a paid off million dollar house with nasty carpet.  You put carpet in the house.

Sorry we disgree.

[Docwaukee]

we keep using the house analogy for a baseball team but it's really more like a rental property.  

building equity by appreciation of the property value.   having to spend a certain amount on the property itself in order to garner rent at a certain level where you are making money.  

maybe Harper/Machado is putting in a pool in this scenario.   

[totdprods]

It’d be pretty funny if Arte actually was all for Harper or Machado all offseason and anxious to sign either, and it was Eppler and the Baseball Ops guys actually wanting to stay away due to data, analytics, or behavioral issues giving them too many red flags. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

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

my bad, that was flop. 

[Dtwncbad]

13 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we keep using the house analogy for a baseball team but it's really more like a rental property.  

building equity by appreciation of the property value.   having to spend a certain amount on the property itself in order to garner rent at a certain level where you are making money.  

maybe Harper/Machado is putting in a pool in this scenario.   

I don't disagree at all since spending on the property has an impact on what you can charge for rent.

I would go to more games this year if the team was on a pace to win 90+ games versus if they were on a pace to win 82.

I also might go to a few more games or watch more games if the team had another beast player.

Believe me, I could not be more thrilled with Trout and Simmons and Ohtani and Upton.  It's awesome.  But as a fan I can't help be excited for the idea of dropping a Harper into that lineup.

This rental property has a pool, a bonus game room, a view and what??? They just added a theatre room with a popcorn machine?  Sick!

 

[Angel Oracle]

40 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I love your post.  Look I am am an Arte Moreno fan overall.  He has been a good owner and I wouldn't want to roll the dice hoping for something better.

I am simply saying as a fan, there are some opportunities I wish he were more aggressive on.

Arte definitely has made some ballsy signings in the past that no Angel fan thought was remotely possible.  I dont recall anyone ever believing the Angel's coukd afford to roll out a $250m contract for Pujols.

The Angels will easily survive that disaster.

Lesson learned.  By to me the lesson was not to avoid a big obligation.  It was avoid a big obligation with a player over the hill.

Harper is only 26 and he could play RF now and move to 1B when Adell is ready.  The Angels would be way more exciting now and Harper is plenty young enough to be a beast MOTO for this next era when the youngsters are here.  And I dont think for one second it would hurt the team financially when you look at the rate of revenue growth versus the rate of salary growth in MLB.  The blnumbers strongly suggest the owners are sandbagging and getting over on the players.

But we don't know for sure since we dont see the real financials.  We can only suspect, and I suspect.

Other can disagree and that's cool.

 

Let's say that Arte is able to make one more big FA signing for the next 5-7 years.

Which would make more sense?  

Harper, who although just 26 has been up and down the past 4 seasons and has a propensity for crashing into walls.   

Or a year later, Arenado, who checks off pretty much every box (including solving a longtime 3B weakness and having a solid .830 road OPS since 2016) and will only be 29 to start the 2020 season?   Keeping in mind 1/3 of his road games each year were played in big pitchers parks (SF, SD, and the Dogs)

[floplag]

13 minutes ago, Lou said:

my bad, that was flop. 

Yes it was, than you for pointing that out. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

The Nats have lots of huge contracts and they are still considered a possible landing spot for Harper, AND to extend Rendon at another huge commitment.

the Nats are owned by the Lerner family, who are worth more than $5 Billion. 

in relation to Arte, they should be spending around $425 Million on salaries annually. 

 

[beatlesrule]

7 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Let's say that Arte is able to make one more big FA signing for the next 5-7 years.

Which would make more sense?  

Harper, who although just 26 has been up and down the past 4 seasons and has a propensity for crashing into walls.   

Or a year later, Arenado, who checks off pretty much every box (including solving a longtime 3B weakness and having a solid .830 road OPS since 2016) and will only be 29 to start the 2020 season?   Keeping in mind 1/3 of his road games each year were played in big pitchers parks (SF, SD, and the Dogs)

Machado is younger and better than Arenado.

[Blarg]

8 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Machado is younger and better than Arenado.

They both have the exact same career OPS+ 

In 6 seasons Arenado has a 33.1 career WAR

In 7 seasons Machado has a 33.7 career WAR

These two players are about as identical as any pair get.

[Griffey's Corner]

1 hour ago, stormngt said:

you don't take equity out of your home unless there is a better investment opportunity available.  

If the house is a rental for tax implications it would behoove any owner to take the equity out.

[Angel Oracle]

And while both Machado and Arenado have had solid hitters parks at home, Machado benefitted from every AL East stadium being hitting friendly.   That accounts for almost half of his road at bats (between 36-40 AL East road games a year).   Arenado, conversely, plays 27-30 of his road games in three difficult for hitting NL West stadiums.

That plus Machado's immaturity and Arenado's stability = Arenado > Machado.

That said, it's just hypothetical anyway because that is a lot of money to spend on any player, knowing that Trout, Simba, and ultimately Ohtani will all need new big contracts to stay upon hitting FA.