Tough question on Trout

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Show your work.  And the cost will always be dumped on the fans.  Arte has done an amazing job of not dumping it on the fans as much as other teams have.  

You are correct, he has done an amazing job in that sense.   However, we both know neither one of us can actually "show our work" as you request as there is too much unknown, it comes down to what you believe based on what is known.  Its an absurd question really since neither one of us could answer it factually. 

It comes down to one simple thing, you either believe that the club is making its maximum effort financially payroll wise and is not capable of doing any more than it is, or you do not.   You believe the former, i believe the latter.   

I wonder though exactly what does he have to dump on us?    Team value has risen by a billion dollars, TV deal netting 100M more than the previous one per year... where is this burden that he even should consider dumping that we should be so grateful for?  This franchise is in no way losing money or hurting financially by any meaure i can conceive of. 

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, floplag said:

You are correct, he has done an amazing job in that sense.   However, we both know neither one of us can actually "show our work" as you request as there is too much unknown, it comes down to what you believe based on what is known.  Its an absurd question really since neither one of us could answer it factually. 

It comes down to one simple thing, you either believe that the club is making its maximum effort financially payroll wise and is not capable of doing any more than it is, or you do not.   You believe the former, i believe the latter.   

I wonder though exactly what does he have to dump on us?    Team value has risen by a billion dollars, TV deal netting 100M more than the previous one per year... where is this burden that he even should consider dumping that we should be so grateful for?  This franchise is in no way losing money or hurting financially by any meaure i can conceive of. 

Ok so why shouldn’t the customer foot the bill?   I’ll put it in terms I think you’d agree with.   If minimum wage goes up prices for all good go up.   So as costs increase for the team the customer will pay those costs.   

How bout looking at The Yankees and Dodgers or even the Red Sox.   Look at total revenue and look what percentage they are paying to payroll.   It is MUCH less percentage wise than Arte.   These are things we know and if Arte is being cheap or could spend more then the Dodgers or Yankees could spend $200 million more than they currently are, yet they don’t.   Yankees aren’t signing Harper or Machado.  Dodgers haven’t signed $100 million contract since Kershaw 6-7 years ago.   

[Dtwncbad]

I think some of us are saying we believe we already are footing the bill to support more spending on player salaries.

Across MLB revenues have grown at a pace that way exceeds the growth pace of salaries.

Given that, it is common sense that the fans are already paying for it, but the owners are pocketing it instead of spending it on players.

 

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok so why shouldn’t the customer foot the bill?   I’ll put it in terms I think you’d agree with.   If minimum wage goes up prices for all good go up.   So as costs increase for the team the customer will pay those costs.   

How bout looking at The Yankees and Dodgers or even the Red Sox.   Look at total revenue and look what percentage they are paying to payroll.   It is MUCH less percentage wise than Arte.   These are things we know and if Arte is being cheap or could spend more then the Dodgers or Yankees could spend $200 million more than they currently are, yet they don’t.   Yankees aren’t signing Harper or Machado.  Dodgers haven’t signed $100 million contract since Kershaw 6-7 years ago.   

That would depend entirely upon the profitability of the company and situation.  Did Mcdonalds for example freak out at the mimimum wage thing, no in fact they were likely supporting it to justify going kiosk, .. but a lot of smaller businesses that didnt have the revenue to afford it sure did.   Its relative not absolute.

Again it isnt about what they could spend in comparison to the Dogs or Yanks, you keep coming back to that when it has nothing to do with it.  As you say they could spend 200M more... the point is that we could spend 30 or 50 more based on our perceived resources, not that we should spend like they do.  Ive never asked that this team do that, not once... even in my wildest proposal i never got close to the tax. 
 

[Mark68]

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

You’re right ... but it does open a roster spot and  put the team well under the luxury tax. 

It frees up a roster spot, yes.

It does not, however, put the team under the luxury tax. His salary still counts (and it's still a salary that the team has to pay, so it counts in absolute terms as well).

[Troll Daddy]

1 minute ago, Mark68 said:

It frees up a roster spot, yes.

It does not, however, put the team under the luxury tax. His salary still counts (and it's still a salary that the team has to pay, so it counts in absolute terms as well).

I did not know that Thxs 

[2112]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Fair.

I think he is a difference maker.  I think the while Angel lineup looks different with Harper on there.

Just to comment on if he puts the Angels "over the top".  . .

I don't really like the idea of only making a move if it puts the Angels over the top.

I think if the team is improved, it is worth considering (and of course salary does matter for the assocuated impact).

A 94 win team that loses in the playoffs is much more enjoyable to watch than a 87 win team that misses the playoffs.

I don't want to be a small or mid market team that holds back until they make moves to get "over the top" in a "go ffor it now" mode, if that is what you meant by putting the team over the top.

The team would be improved, but with the Angels he does not fit a need they have.

The Angels need is to have more scoring opportunities for Trout, Upton, Simmons, etc.  And also lessen Pujols' negative impact on the lineup.

 

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, NotMyCat said:

The team would be improved, but with the Angels he does not fit a need they have.

The Angels need is to have more scoring opportunities for Trout, Upton, Simmons, etc.  And also lessen Pujols' negative impact on the lineup.

 

The Angels don't need an on base machine RF middle of the order hitter with massive power that will likely move to 1B in a couple of years?

That's not a fit?

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Nolan Ryan is known for 3 main things:

no-hitters

gas and a shit ton of Ks

clocking Robin Ventura.  

 

I dont care about number 3 at all.  Ryan was the silent but deadly pitcher.   Trout is absolutely perfect the way he is.  I’m a marketing guy and I don’t care about Trout being marketed well. 

 

I enjoy his sweet swing, his home-run saving leaping catches, and that huge Facking smile on his face when he’s ballin’. 

 

No no need for anything more of Harper. 

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The Angels don't need an on base machine RF middle of the order hitter with massive power that will likely move to 1B in a couple of years?

That's not a fit?

not for 330 mil over 10 years.  

[2112]

38 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

The Angels don't need an on base machine RF middle of the order hitter with massive power that will likely move to 1B in a couple of years?

That's not a fit?

And you can kill a fly with a Buick too.

 

But a flyswatter is A LOT cheaper. 

 

Hyperbole much?  Massive power?  So averaging 30 homers playing half his games in a hitters park is massive power?

By comparison Trout averages 37 in a pitchers park.

[Lou]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You wrote:  "The "he can afford it and it won't affect his life" argument is ridiculous"

I was responding to your statement above, pointing out that the team has no issue asking me to pay $12 for a beer that costs them a buck to pour.  And I do because it won't affect my life financially, they know that, and they price it that way.

So it really isnt ridiculous at all, is it?

show me the statement by the team saying they charge $12 for a beer because you can afford it and it won't affect your life.

[Dtwncbad]

11 minutes ago, Lou said:

show me the statement by the team saying they charge $12 for a beer because you can afford it and it won't affect your life.

OK.

"Beer $12"

 

[Blarg]

8 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Like a broken record I mention for the 100th time that I have a specific interest in the 26 year old Harper (and did with the 26 year old Machado) because they FIT the plan.

The objection to adding a 26 year old player to this plan is mind boggling.

They only fit your plan, which isn't really a plan, it's just jumping on the most expensive free agents on the market and trying to rationalize it as adding star power.

That's not a plan.

[Dtwncbad]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

They only fit your plan, which isn't really a plan, it's just jumping on the most expensive free agents on the market and trying to rationalize it as adding star power.

That's not a plan.

Signing Harper in isolation is no more my comprehensive "plan" than not signing him is the entirety of your plan.

 

[Blarg]

You seem to think I'm promoting a personal plan. I'm not. I'm just observing what the Angels are doing and listening to what they have outlined as their plan. 

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You seem to think I'm promoting a personal plan. I'm not. I'm just observing what the Angels are doing and listening to what they have outlined as their plan. 

I love what they are doing overall.  Eppler has things going in the right direction and as a fan there really is nothing better than having really good homegrown players.  I am all in.

I just think a 26 year old in their prime is a fantastic add to that, especially when I think the success of the youth movement (coat controlled) will make it even easier to afford it.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Blarg]

The Angels obviously don't believe either Machado or Harper move the needle for the money invested. 

[Docwaukee]

32 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I love what they are doing overall.  Eppler has things going in the right direction and as a fan there really is nothing better than having really good homegrown players.  I am all in.

I just think a 26 year old in their prime is a fantastic add to that, especially when I think the success of the youth movement (coat controlled) will make it even easier to afford it.

the guy with the money and the guy who picks the team disagree.  

you keep de-identifying the player(s).  Why?  In theory, your supposition of adding an expensive 26 year old star player makes sense for a lot of teams.  But each of the players available have their warts that need to be factored in on an individual basis.  

I am certainly in favor of paying that young star player who is about to enter their prime, but the other thing you are paying for is the so called 'star power' you have brought up several times.  I don't feel like the Angels would get maximum benefit from paying full retail for that component of said players cost.  Maybe they get a little, but not to the extent that other teams like an SD, CWS, or even the Dogs might get.  We are odd in that regard because of Trout and Ohtani.  I equate it to paying top dollar for a GG defensive CFer and so you can put him in LF.  

A big part of Harper's lure is his marketability.   His contract will absolutely reflect that because based on pure production, he's not worth the 30-35 mil per year he's gonna get.  Save the 10-15 mil for something else.  

And one final thing to think about.  Based on your theory/thought process, about half if not more of the teams in baseball would benefit from having Harper.  Does it make more sense everyone is being cheap and colluding or that every team has done their due diligence on this with their teams of analysts they are paying millions of dollars and only a couple have concluded that it's worth it.  

There is way more risk here than you are accounting for.  

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 2/25/2019 at 9:53 PM, Blarg said:

This is not a topic about Trout but rather Dtown trying to shift the focus to rationalizing getting Harper now that his boy Manny is a Padre. 

Off topic, but I think a good nickname for manny would be macho padre.

[ten ocho recon scout]

20 hours ago, Lou said:

Thank you, Fletch. 

The "he can afford it and it won't affect his life" argument is ridiculous. 

98% of the posters here can afford to give $200 to their neighbor right now. I bet none of them will. 

My neighbor has a super hot (ok, cute) daughter whos like 23. Id give her $200.

 

[Lou]

9 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

OK.

"Beer $12"

 

so never 

[Stradling]

DT is kinda whack in this conversation.  He knows Harper is going to get $300 million, maybe $330 million over ten years.  He also believes he’s not even in Trouts league as a player (which we’d all agree with).   He believes if Trout isn’t paid a lot more then he should fire his agent.  Lastly he wants the Angels to sign both, because Arte is dishonest and makes enough profit to afford it.   So $75-80 million for two players.  If one gets hurt or under performs, he’ll if Harper simply performs like last year, the team is fucked much worse than they are today.  

[Dtwncbad]

"He knows Harper is going to get $300 million, maybe $330 million over ten years.:

Yes.  That's not whack.

"He also believes he’s not even in Trouts league as a player (which we’d all agree with)."

Yes.  Not whack.

"He believes if Trout isn’t paid a lot more then he should fire his agent."

No.  Trout can handle his financial career any way he wants including playing for the minimum if he wants.  But he is worth much more than Harper.

"Lastly he wants the Angels to sign both, because Arte is dishonest and makes enough profit to afford it."

Yes.  I am interested in having more very good players and there is more owner profit than they admit.

"So $75-80 million for two players.  If one gets hurt or under performs, he’ll if Harper simply performs like last year, the team is fucked much worse than they are today."

Any team is screwed if a premium player gets hurt.  That's not a reason to avoid premium players.  I am more afraid of Calhoun repeating his 2018 than Harper repeating his 3.5 WAR.

So we have different opinions Strad. So what?

[Inside Pitch]

18 hours ago, floplag said:

Why does one have to equal the other?  

This question alone is why it's pointless to debate this with you -- anyone that believes the investment into the team shouldn't have an impact on what people pay to attend games is beyond the point of rational discourse.   MLB is not an NPO, nor is it a charity organization.

18 hours ago, floplag said:

However, would i pay more to have a better product, yes, i would.   I would debate whether or not thats necessary, but if it was, i would do it.

And the questioned asked was -- how much more.  Saying you'd pay more for "a better product" is a non answer.   Are you willing to go where the Dodgers and Yankees have asked their fans to go?  

19 hours ago, floplag said:

But, thats also still not the point, and no its not something ive ignored.   My position is that we could afford it due to the team making more than ample profits and value increases to support it.  The costs shouldn't have to be dumped on the fans but if it was to a degree i would be fine with it personally.  

Beg your pardon but it was the entire point of my question -- you not wanting to address it because you feel entitled to an owner spending money without regards to his bottom line has no bearing on my asking the actual question.. 

So, lets try this again...  How much are you willing to pay?  The Yankees, and Dodgers both have passed the buck onto the fan...  Both make significantly more money than the Angels, so your idea of what's enough profit doesn't seem to jive with whats actually happening in the real world.   I make bring this up because you're the one that argued that the gap in revenue between those teams and the Angels isn't that great, and that they could go spend more if they only wanted to.  Well, those teams are asking their fans to pay more despite having greater revenue streams.... so, stop pretending the two things aren't connected.

Those fans have put their money where their mouths are -- Are you willing to pay as much as those fans and remember -- "THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES" free agency will lead to winning or, "a better product".  I get this sneaking suspicion that should the team invest the dollars you see fit, your willingness to support their investment would be 100% connected to the actual performance and not the investment. 

Something about having your cake and eating it too.