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

[Blarg]

They have the exact same career OPS+ 

[Dtwncbad]

26 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)

I like Arenado more but I can't ignore the guarantee of the additional overlap year of having Harper with Trout now.

If I knew for sure the Angels could get Arenado next year that would be great.  But he isn't a free agent yet, they could extend him, and they could also trade him to a team that extends him as part of a deal.

 

[Angel Oracle]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

They have the exact same career OPS+ 

I missed the + part.    Never mind

The big difference is Machado's immaturity.

[Angel Oracle]

Harper seems like a little overkill for the price, given having Adell, Marsh, Knowles, etc. on the farm.    OF is one of the least needed upgrades down the road. 

[beatlesrule]

Arenado plays half his games in Coors field but fine. MM is younger and that means he should be better longer.

[Blarg]

Machado has played more seasons. Wear and tear combined with a bad attitude means his career will be done sooner.

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 hours 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.

That didn’t seem right to me so I looked it up. 

CBA, attachment 22 describes the debt-service rule. In part 2, #9 it says player compensation is considered debt, beyond the first $75M (if I’m reading it correctly.)

Again, I don’t know the Angels financials and whether this rule actually has an impact, but it is another unknown element that should prevent anyone here from claiming to have an informed opinion of what they “should” spend. 

In the end, it comes down to people simply wanting them to spend more because they want them to spend more. That’s no different than my son thinking I should buy him a car, someone thinking in-n-out should make its burgers bigger or .... Varuka Salt wanting an Oompa Loompa.

 

[Lou]

41 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Arenado plays half his games in Coors field but fine. MM is younger and that means he should be better longer.

MM played in Camden and a ton of games in AL East Little League parks. 

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

someone thinking in-n-out should make its burgers bigge

@Stradling ?

[Stradling]

12 minutes ago, Lou said:

@Stradling ?

I too want an Oompa Loompa 

[Lou]

I can't believe Fletch won't buy his son a car.  He can obviously afford it. It's like the Arte/Harper/Machado scenario all over again.

[ettin]

11 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I too want an Oompa Loompa 

I want an Oompa Loompa NOW!

[Hubs]

21 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's not that accurate. It also has the Angels paying Tazawa $7M last year

Yeah, I saw that. Normally it would have a note on the bottom saying Portion paid by Atlanta -7M.

[Lou]

I want INO 

[Blarg]

43 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

someone thinking in-n-out should make its burgers bigger better french fries...

Fify

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I’m at one now

I'm having it delivered 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

16 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

And although it’s easy to say he’s making money from the value of his asset going up, that only matters when you sell it.

I have made this point several times. The overall value of the club only matters if Moreno sells it. It doesn't give him more money now. If I bought my house for $150,000 and it's worth $500,000 now, that doesn't give me more money unless I unload it.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That didn’t seem right to me so I looked it up. 

CBA, attachment 22 describes the debt-service rule. In part 2, #9 it says player compensation is considered debt, beyond the first $75M (if I’m reading it correctly.)

Again, I don’t know the Angels financials and whether this rule actually has an impact, but it is another unknown element that should prevent anyone here from claiming to have an informed opinion of what they “should” spend. 

In the end, it comes down to people simply wanting them to spend more because they want them to spend more. That’s no different than my son thinking I should buy him a car, someone thinking in-n-out should make its burgers bigger or .... Varuka Salt wanting an Oompa Loompa.

 

I would love to read whatever you are looking at.  In 20 years of working in finance I have never heard a business categorizing future salary obligations as debt.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

I want an Oompa Loompa NOW!

Watch out, you might be "stretched" to your limit like Mike TeeVee.

[T.G.]

The big question is does Mike Trout like INO?

They don't have them back east....

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I would love to read whatever you are looking at.  In 20 years of working in finance I have never heard a business categorizing future salary obligations as debt.

It's the CBA.

http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf

Page 226. Definition of the Debt Service Rule...

(b) Total Club Debt. “Total Club Debt” means a Club’s total outstanding debt, calculated as an average over the course of each fiscal year, including, without limitation, all long-term and short-term obligations and all indebtedness resulting from:

-1 to 8 omitted-

(9) any compensation payable to Major League Players, including deferred compensation or any other commitment under a Uniform Player’s Contract, or any obligation to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan or Industry Growth Fund.

And upon further reading, the $75M exemption refers only to the sources listed in 1-5, so the salaries all count.

Obviously if the Angels are worth $X today, and tomorrow Arte signs Mike Trout to a $1 billion contract, the Angels would be worth something different.

 

[Dtwncbad]

15 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

It's the CBA.

http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf

Page 226. Definition of the Debt Service Rule...

(b) Total Club Debt. “Total Club Debt” means a Club’s total outstanding debt, calculated as an average over the course of each fiscal year, including, without limitation, all long-term and short-term obligations and all indebtedness resulting from:

-1 to 8 omitted-

(9) any compensation payable to Major League Players, including deferred compensation or any other commitment under a Uniform Player’s Contract, or any obligation to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan or Industry Growth Fund.

And upon further reading, the $75M exemption refers only to the sources listed in 1-5, so the salaries all count.

Obviously if the Angels are worth $X today, and tomorrow Arte signs Mike Trout to a $1 billion contract, the Angels would be worth something different.

 

Thank you.  I understand the context now.

They are using the word debt much more inclusively here for the purposes of having a math equation that is useful in holding owners accountable on the subject of maintaining solvency.

It is a fair analysis.

Having said that, our entire conversation to this point in terms of debt has been about how much debt an owner is carrying not related to salary.

McCourt bought the Dodgers with mostly debt.

Arte has no "debt" in his capital structure of owning the team.

Huge, huge difference.

So I absolutely appreciate what you shared and I learned something.

As I really think about it, it might be fair to consider an unconditional salary obligation as debt.  But then you have to adjust every way you measure how much debt (overall including future salary obligations) is healthy to accommodate the categorization.

The CBA evidently has done that.  And in the end, we are back to the same point.  Arte, with no "normal" capital structure debt is in a far more healthy position to spend more than an owner who is leveraged in lots of debt from buying the team in the first place.

I am going to spend more time reading some of the CBA.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am going to spend more time reading some of the CBA.

We expect a full book report a week from today.

[AngelsLakersFan]

18 hours ago, Dochalo said:

but why don't you think he wants to risk it?  because he thinks it's a bad bet and I guarantee he's got a shit ton of data and analysis to tell him why.  

It's 100% because he, like other owners, has noticed he doesn't get even a decent return on investment in the FA market. He spent big on Pujols, Hamilton, and Wilson and probably would have been better off keeping that cash in the bank. He has given up on this route.

[red321]

Can't believe y'all are missing the true meaning behind this...this is exactly what a team making a secret bid on Machado or Harper would say...