Tough question on Trout

[arch stanton]

Over the threshold is a temporary thing. Not signing multiple 10 year megadeals

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff, respectfully it is ridiculous for me to have any interest in convincing you to agree with my opinion.

You and I know exactly the same amount about the real exact financials of the team.

You do realize, I hope, that the owners would never want the fans to have my opinion and that they would use their face-to-face interactions with people like you to paint the picture they want to hopefully shape the fan opinions.

I am happy you believe everything they tell you.

 

I am sure that if they spent another $50 million a year Arte would still be “rich.” I am also sure that if McDonalds charged 10 cents less for a hamburger, and my bank charged me .2 percent less interest and my car cost $1,000 less and on and on that those companies would still be “profitable.” 

My point is that they have a right to make whatever profit the market will allow and the only input any of us gets in the matter is whether we spend our dollars on their business. 

If enough people believed the Angels weren’t producing a product worth their entertainment dollars, the Angels would have to change the product. Obviously, that’s not the case. 

[Lou]

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. 

[Blarg]

47 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If enough people believed the Angels weren’t producing a product worth their entertainment dollars, the Angels would have to change the product. Obviously, that’s not the case. 

But, the Angels are in the process of changing the on field product. They are accutely aware that filling the stadium isn't a given and need to win to draw interest.

What some fans don't want to accept is the Angels plan is based on a five year projection and not which shiny object is for sale today. 

Wearing red, must be an Angels fan.

[Jay]

On 2/25/2019 at 6:17 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

The Angels had pretty much the most interesting player in the world on their team last year and I don’t think their attendance changed all that much. 

I think the Angels have a pretty big built-in base comprised of casual fans who just want to go hang out and don’t even know what’s going on, and hardcore fans who will go no matter what. For those in between, I think a winning team is more of a draw than any individual player. 

And the ones in between are about 90% of the fans.

 

[Dtwncbad]

8 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I am sure that if they spent another $50 million a year Arte would still be “rich.” I am also sure that if McDonalds charged 10 cents less for a hamburger, and my bank charged me .2 percent less interest and my car cost $1,000 less and on and on that those companies would still be “profitable.” 

My point is that they have a right to make whatever profit the market will allow and the only input any of us gets in the matter is whether we spend our dollars on their business. 

If enough people believed the Angels weren’t producing a product worth their entertainment dollars, the Angels would have to change the product. Obviously, that’s not the case. 

You still evidently don't get the point.  I am not mad at the Angels.  Of course Arte can continue exactly as he us and I remain a fan.  He can choose to make whatever he wants to make.

What you I guess refuse to even entertain is the fact that he and the other owners dont have to share their financials.

It is his business and he is successful.  No arguments at all.

But does Arte say what you said in your post?  No.  He says lots of stuff to make people think they sometimes lose money or that they only made $10m or they lost little blah blah blah.

It's a lie Jeff.

People smarter than us estimate the Angels would sell for up to $2b.

Even if a buyer was aggressive and was willing to pay 20 times earnings, that would mean the Angels are making $100m a year (not to mention the growing balance sheet).

People don't pay $2 billion for business that make $10 or $15 million a year.

I am a fan of the Angels and I always will be unless they move or the sport gets ruined somehow.

The money on the game is in our face. 

We know how much the players get paid and they get fully judged on that.

The owners hide their financial information.  Why because they can.

I believe the owners are now in era again where their profit is not in line with what they pay players.

The entire system relies on the owners paying what "the market" will pay but it is a small group and they can easily collude.  They have been busted multiple times.

So you and I are not having the same conversation Jeff.  I agree Arte can do whatever he wants and his customers vote with their dollars.

I love this team and I have for 40 years. And I will stay a fan.  But I am not a fool.  The owners are getting over on the players right now and I see it.

They do too.  Work stoppage on the way.

Maybe the owners can call you in and let you explain to them that the owners can make whatever they want just like McDonalds?

[Dtwncbad]

8 hours ago, Blarg said:

But, the Angels are in the process of changing the on field product. They are accutely aware that filling the stadium isn't a given and need to win to draw interest.

What some fans don't want to accept is the Angels plan is based on a five year projection and not which shiny object is for sale today. 

Wearing red, must be an Angels fan.

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.

[fan_since79]

12 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

This is where I put the “I want an Oompa Loompa now!” meme.

The Angels have a budget that doesn’t allow for Harper/Machado in addition to Trout, Pujols, Upton.

Of course I know you don’t believe it, and I honestly don’t know anything beyond what both Moreno and Eppler have told me to my face. 

The albatross around our payroll neck. Three more years, $87 million. Unless he does the right thing and retires.

[Dtwncbad]

9 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. 

Just for fun, I will note this is the team's stance on what they charge me for parking, food, tickets, etc.

Two way street Lou.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Just for fun, I will note this is the team's stance on what they charge me for parking, food, tickets, etc.

Two way street Lou.

Ok, so break it down for us.  In your opinion how much profit do you think the team makes.  You say a lot and it is tough to argue with your logic on value of the team versus revenue.  We know that they get $150 million or so from the TV contract, but we also know that 30% of that goes to revenue sharing, so that puts it at about $100 million.  They get their portion of the MLB National TV contract.  We also know that all MLB liscenced merchandise is shared throughout every team regardless of where it is sold, and it is shared with the players as well.  We know the Angels get most of parking until a certain threshold, then the city gets the rest.  If payroll is approximately 50%, then Arte is telling you they bring in $330-350 million, which is exactly what I posted on here from a website.  We also know that they sell 3 million tickets a year and we know the average ticket price is about $30 according to reports readily available online.  I am not sure where all of this revenue is coming from, but there are plenty of places for you to go to to break it down.  You are obviously interested in this stuff, so instead of telling us we are wrong for having a bit of trust in what we are told, spend that time breaking it down.   And make it a discussion point based on that information and not based on distrust and I am sure more people will listen to you.  Without that it is very easy to confuse you acting like Oompa Loompa girl, sorry.  

[angelsnationtalk]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

You still evidently don't get the point.  I am not mad at the Angels.  Of course Arte can continue exactly as he us and I remain a fan.  He can choose to make whatever he wants to make.

What you I guess refuse to even entertain is the fact that he and the other owners dont have to share their financials.

It is his business and he is successful.  No arguments at all.

But does Arte say what you said in your post?  No.  He says lots of stuff to make people think they sometimes lose money or that they only made $10m or they lost little blah blah blah.

It's a lie Jeff.

People smarter than us estimate the Angels would sell for up to $2b.

Even if a buyer was aggressive and was willing to pay 20 times earnings, that would mean the Angels are making $100m a year (not to mention the growing balance sheet).

People don't pay $2 billion for business that make $10 or $15 million a year.

I am a fan of the Angels and I always will be unless they move or the sport gets ruined somehow.

The money on the game is in our face. 

We know how much the players get paid and they get fully judged on that.

The owners hide their financial information.  Why because they can.

I believe the owners are now in era again where their profit is not in line with what they pay players.

The entire system relies on the owners paying what "the market" will pay but it is a small group and they can easily collude.  They have been busted multiple times.

So you and I are not having the same conversation Jeff.  I agree Arte can do whatever he wants and his customers vote with their dollars.

I love this team and I have for 40 years. And I will stay a fan.  But I am not a fool.  The owners are getting over on the players right now and I see it.

They do too.  Work stoppage on the way.

Maybe the owners can call you in and let you explain to them that the owners can make whatever they want just like McDonalds?

And then there's the Dodgers. Payroll flirting with the tax threshold and they're still willing to put winning first before their pockets by making a run for Harper. Like I have said before... It's a great time to be a Dodgers fan to see ownership build a strong farm and "flex their financial might"... Right Eppler?

Some writers and players have said it best.... Every team should be in on Harper.

[floplag]

45 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

The albatross around our payroll neck. Three more years, $87 million. Unless he does the right thing and retires.

I read this here a lot, and i frankly find it hard to believe that one bad contract is crippling this team unless the team lets it do that.
If he was making 10-15M noone would care, so we are crippled over 15-20M?  really?  This franchise?   

[Dtwncbad]

15 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok, so break it down for us.  In your opinion how much profit do you think the team makes.  You say a lot and it is tough to argue with your logic on value of the team versus revenue.  We know that they get $150 million or so from the TV contract, but we also know that 30% of that goes to revenue sharing, so that puts it at about $100 million.  They get their portion of the MLB National TV contract.  We also know that all MLB liscenced merchandise is shared throughout every team regardless of where it is sold, and it is shared with the players as well.  We know the Angels get most of parking until a certain threshold, then the city gets the rest.  If payroll is approximately 50%, then Arte is telling you they bring in $330-350 million, which is exactly what I posted on here from a website.  We also know that they sell 3 million tickets a year and we know the average ticket price is about $30 according to reports readily available online.  I am not sure where all of this revenue is coming from, but there are plenty of places for you to go to to break it down.  You are obviously interested in this stuff, so instead of telling us we are wrong for having a bit of trust in what we are told, spend that time breaking it down.   And make it a discussion point based on that information and not based on distrust and I am sure more people will listen to you.  Without that it is very easy to confuse you acting like Oompa Loompa girl, sorry.  

I dont have their financials Strad so the project you assign is impossible.

But look at what I bolded and underlined. I am not telling anyone they are "wrong" to trust what you are told.  To each his own.  I am far more saying don't call me wrong for not believing it when they hide the financials and we see team value estimates that suggest they make much more money than they say they do.

Pujols is off the books shortly and the Angels are still under the luxury tax now.  They are already paying Trout $34m, so his extension us not going to be a huge increase in annual cost.

Being somewhat adamant that the Angels could easily afford to have added Machado or could now add Harper is far from reckless.

All I am saying is I reject the argument that they can't afford it and I also reject that landing a 26 year old in this current plan is not a fit for the plan.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

And then there's the Dodgers. Payroll flirting with the tax threshold and they're still willing to put winning first before their pockets by making a run for Harper. Like I have said before... It's a great time to be a Dodgers fan to see ownership build a strong farm and "flex their financial might"... Right Eppler?

Some writers and players have said it best.... Every team should be in on Harper.

The Dodgers bring in $300 million more in revenue than the Angels.  The gap between the Dodgers and Angels is 2-3 times the gap between the Angels and the lowest revenue teams in the league.  So compare it if you want, but it is far from relevant.  

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I dont have their financials Strad so the project you assign is impossible.

But look at what I bolded and underlined. I am not telling anyone they are "wrong" to trust what you are told.  To each his own.  I am far more saying don't call me wrong for not believing it when they hide the financials and we see team value estimates that suggest they make much more money than they say they do.

Pujols is off the books shortly and the Angels are still under the luxury tax now.  They are already paying Trout $34m, so his extension us not going to be a huge increase in annual cost.

Being somewhat adamant that the Angels could easily afford to have added Machado or could now add Harper is far from reckless.

All I am saying is I reject the argument that they can't afford it and I also reject that landing a 26 year old in this current plan is not a fit for the plan.

This interests you, do the work, get us a ball park figure of what you think they are looking at.  I came across something that said the Angels in 2017 brought in $336 million in revenue.  That seems about right to me.  It certainly isn’t $500 million, where Arte is pocketing $100 million a year.  You can’t get exact numbers, but do some work.  

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, floplag said:

I read this here a lot, and i frankly find it hard to believe that one bad contract is crippling this team unless the team lets it do that.
If he was making 10-15M noone would care, so we are crippled over 15-20M?  really?  This franchise?   

No we aren’t crippled by his $87 million, that is a false narrative.  We are crippled because we couldn’t develop any everyday players for the better part of a decade so we have to sign free agents to fill every hole in order to keep our head above water.  That is the problem and has been the problem since Stoneman retired.  

[Docwaukee]

@Dtwncbad

you act like there is some guarantee slapped on Harper or Machado.  

Arte might have money to spend.  We don't know how much, but let's say he can afford to sign Harper or Machado.  

Every player is an investment and every investment should be evaluated. 

Your assumption is that it hasn't been evaluated.  Just like your assumption is that they can afford it.  I think you are wrong about the former.  I am assuming they have done their due diligence on Harper or Machado and what they would bring to the team vs. what the team would get in return.  They're a multi-billion dollar organization.  Of course they have.  

They have evaluated every player on the market and estimated the long and short term impact.  

It's not just about having the money to spend.  It's about whether they think the juice is worth the squeeze.  

So where you are wrong is that you think you know better than they do that Harper or Machado would be a good investment for this team in the short and/or long term.  

Even if they chose to stay within their current budget, they could have afforded either of those guys if they thought they were worth it.  

You of all people should know this.  They just didn't like the prospectus on either of those guys and how they matched up with the team's long and short term goals.  

They didn't see a worthy investment.  

 

[Inside Pitch]

10 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. 

The vast majority of the "he can afford it" crowd will also complain about the costs of going to games, even as the team rolls out a top 10 payroll and a bottom 5-10 fan cost index...

[Dtwncbad]

17 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

@Dtwncbad

you act like there is some guarantee slapped on Harper or Machado.  

Arte might have money to spend.  We don't know how much, but let's say he can afford to sign Harper or Machado.  

Every player is an investment and every investment should be evaluated. 

Your assumption is that it hasn't been evaluated.  Just like your assumption is that they can afford it.  I think you are wrong about the former.  I am assuming they have done their due diligence on Harper or Machado and what they would bring to the team vs. what the team would get in return.  They're a multi-billion dollar organization.  Of course they have.  

They have evaluated every player on the market and estimated the long and short term impact.  

It's not just about having the money to spend.  It's about whether they think the juice is worth the squeeze.  

So where you are wrong is that you think you know better than they do that Harper or Machado would be a good investment for this team in the short and/or long term.  

Even if they chose to stay within their current budget, they could have afforded either of those guys if they thought they were worth it.  

You of all people should know this.  They just didn't like the prospectus on either of those guys and how they matched up with the team's long and short term goals.  

They didn't see a worthy investment.  

 

I appreciate your post but some of your conclusions about me are incorrect.

1). I do not "act like" there is a guarantee.  I have said explicitly exactly why I think signing a 26 year old is a better risk than the big mistake of signing the far older Pujols.

2). I do not assume it hasn't been evaluated.  I do not.  I simply have my own opinion about the idea.

3). I do not think I know "better than they do."  I am a fan and I am entitled to my own opinion and I am not obligated to agree with their decisions or analysis.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[floplag]

35 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No we aren’t crippled by his $87 million, that is a false narrative.  We are crippled because we couldn’t develop any everyday players for the better part of a decade so we have to sign free agents to fill every hole in order to keep our head above water.  That is the problem and has been the problem since Stoneman retired.  

Agreed, thus my comment.  People blame Pujols for the reasons we arent doing more when i think its pretty moot.  But i think the reason people think it is is the fact that we dont seem willing or able to spend beyond a certain point that many people, myself included, do not feel is an accurate representation of the teams ability.   

Developing the farm is always a requirement to fill the pipeline with good cheap alternatives that allows for other signings, and we left ourselves in a place where all we could do was sign, i dont think anyone here debates that. 

The debate is how far the team is willing or able to go.

The gap in revenue between us and the Dodgers or Yankess  isnt really the issue.  Yes of course they can afford more, they could probably afford to go 100M over the lux tax cap if they wanted to, but thats not the point.  The point is whether or not this club could afford to do more or to approach the tax which is highly debatable and impossible to accurately determine so it comes down to what the person believes.

[19HALO71]

I would love to see Harper in right, Trout in center, Simmons at SS and Ohtani on the mound. I would also love to see the stadium filled with 40k fans every night. Which would hopefully put the attendance over 4 million for the year. When Pujols FINALLY comes off the books, everything would then fall back into place. Harper and Trout are EXACTLY the kind of players that you go over the luxury tax for. Could you imagine potentially seeing four Angel players starting in an All Star game? That would be insane!!

Go Halos!!!

[Dtwncbad]

43 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This interests you, do the work, get us a ball park figure of what you think they are looking at.  I came across something that said the Angels in 2017 brought in $336 million in revenue.  That seems about right to me.  It certainly isn’t $500 million, where Arte is pocketing $100 million a year.  You can’t get exact numbers, but do some work.  

On the "do the work" I already said something based on real world stuff not reliant on assuming anything told to us that is unconfirmed because they don'tvshare financials.

I will flesh out the same point again.  Who gets to actually see financials?  Potential buyers when a team sells.  We have data on how much people will pay for these teams because teams do sell. 

The consensus is the Angels are worth $1.8 billion, with many believing if the team were actually for sale it would get bid up substantially from there.

So let's just use a round $2 billion.

People do not spend $2 billion to then own a business that makes $20m a year.  That would be paying 100x earnings.  This is completely unrealistic.

So what multiple do buyers/investors pay?

It depends on the economy and the market and the possible upside growth potential.

But even if we used a fairly aggressive multiple of 15 to 18 times earnings, it would pretty strongly suggest that this team is currently profiting between $110m and $133m.

Keep in mind this is being fairly aggressive.  A startup may have way a higher multiple but the Angels are obviously not a startup.

A very mature stable business butvwith some growth potential still may have more like a 9 or 10 multiple.

If you think the Angels fit that description, then it suggests they make more like $200m.

If that seems crazy and staggering, it is.

Pinpointing the number isn't necessary to simply conclude there is no way this team is experiencing any losses or that they are only making a small amount.

That's why I am very cynical on all this.  The math based on what we actually do know strongly suggests these owners are far, far more profitable than what they present to the fans and the media.

These owners are more partners than competitors.  And while that's just how it is, it does create this environment where it is now, and has been, very easy for them to exploit the monopoly.

They have been busted multiple times colluding.

The revenue growth over the years has far outrun the salary growth pace.

The work stoppage is coming.  The union isnt buying the package presented by the owners at all.

And neither do I.

I am going to follow this team and root regardless of who owns the team and who they do or do not sign.

But this is the MAIN point: I am a fan and I want to win.  I want a great farm system AND I would love for the team to also land a 26 year old premium player.  I would never, ever apologize for being a fan.

Have they done their analysis and evaluations and they have concluded they don't think Harper is worth the money?  Probably, but then just say that!

Don't tell me the budget doesn't allow it as if not sticking to the budget is not financially responsible or would cause damage to the franchise financially.

If the owners want me AS A FAN to make conclusions based on their budget, then show me the financials.so I know they are not misrepresenting the situation.

"We spend 50% of revenue on salaries" is an entirely empty statement to me.  It means nothing.  I consider it manipulative and taking advantage of the secrecy in the financials.

Open the books or don't but dont feed me these little contrived nuggets to suggest that it gives me the information I need to determine if the owner is spending the right amount on the players.

 

 

 

[Inside Pitch]

20 minutes ago, floplag said:

Agreed, thus my comment.  People blame Pujols for the reasons we arent doing more when i think its pretty moot.  But i think the reason people think it is is the fact that we dont seem willing or able to spend beyond a certain point that many people, myself included, do not feel is an accurate representation of the teams ability.   

The gap in revenue between us and the Dodgers or Yankess  isnt really the issue.  Yes of course they can afford more, they could probably afford to go 100M over the lux tax cap if they wanted to, but thats not the point.  The point is whether or not this club could afford to do more or to approach the tax which is highly debatable and impossible to accurately determine so it comes down to what the person believes.

The the most recent Angels FCI was $194.00, 7th lowest in MLB.   

Are you willing to have that rise to the $301.46 Yankees fans pay, or the $268.02 Dodger fans pay.   The Padres BTW came in 192.00, just below the Angels.   

So,  how much more are you willing to pay as a fan in order to have them spend the amount you believe is satisfactory?

Not asking to be argumentative -- curious how much more people would be willing to pay.

 

[Angelsfan1984]

I think the Pujols debacle has more to do with the obligation to play a inferior player who makes 30M a year. Its not specifically the contract but it is part of the problem. If he was making 10M they could bench him and really not give it much thought. You cannot trade him, if you plan on benching him and wasting 87M you might as well just cut him and open a roster spot. Unfortunately, the Angels aren't in the business to cut bait on him. The ramifications of that are much worse than just benching him for "injury". Players see how veterans are treated. So the next time you wish a guy would get signed you have to realize that history may have something to do with it. Either way the 87M is a sunk cost and they may for the next 3 seasons have to approach the luxury tax to make up the difference in terms of performance and value.

 

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

The the most recent Angels FCI was $194.00, 7th lowest in MLB.   

Are you willing to have that rise to the $301.46 Yankees fans pay, or the $268.02 Dodger fans pay.   The Padres BTW came in 192.00, just below the Angels.   

So,  how much more are you willing to pay as a fan in order to have them spend the amount you believe is satisfactory?

Not asking to be argumentative -- curious how much more people would be willing to pay.

 

Why does one have to equal the other?  
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.
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.