Tough question on Trout

[Troll Daddy]

2 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

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

The Angels could also do the right thing and release him #joshhamilton

[Dtwncbad]

How about a pivot here?

If out of the blue the Angels announced:

1). they signed Harper to a 10 year $340 contract

2). This will not be any obstacle in spending what it takes to extend Trout

How many Angel fans would be ecstatic to have Harper and how many would be upset they signed Harper?

I would be ecstatic and yet I suspect some fans would be upset.  And I really don't know why any fan would be upset.

(I would understand if they signed a 31 year old to a 10 year deal).

So if Angels did signed Harper today, are you happy or unhappy about it? 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

The Angels could also do the right thing and release him #joshhamilton

Apples and oranges.  Hamilton failed in his word to Moreno regarding some very important stuff.

Pujols stinks now but the reality is even I knew Pujols was going to stink at the end of the contract.  We have now entered into the part if the contract that was exactly expected, and unless Pujols lies ro Moreno or embarrasses him personally or becomes a cancer in the clubhouse, it would be very dumb to release him.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[2112]

I personally think that Harper, although a very good player, isn't in the same league as Trout.  I think that any team that already has good talent should not be looking at Harper.  He isn't a difference maker.

On Trout, he has stated several times that he likes it here.  I think that if he goes to the Phillies or the Yankees he is going to be under a LOT of pressure, and won't perform to the level he has here.  

 

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, NotMyCat said:

I personally think that Harper, although a very good player, isn't in the same league as Trout.  I think that any team that already has good talent should not be looking at Harper.  He isn't a difference maker.

On Trout, he has stated several times that he likes it here.  I think that if he goes to the Phillies or the Yankees he is going to be under a LOT of pressure, and won't perform to the level he has here.  

 

I don't think anyone at this point thinks Harper is even close to Trout.

Nobody is.  If you reject Harper for that reason then you reject every player on earth.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Lou]

2 hours 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.

huh?

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

huh?

Just saying I accept the gouging parking and beer price.  It doesn't change my standard of living paying "too much" for that stuff.

So if this is OK, why is it not OK for me to have an opinion in return (two way street) that signing Harper is not going to change Moreno's standard of living?

I think it's a fair question.

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

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.

Really? When did he say that? I don't remember him saying that.

All he's ever said to me is they have a budget.

I don't ask how much profit he makes or how much he makes or how much his yacht costs because it's none of my business. 

[Dtwncbad]

Thanks to everyone for a nice discussion here.  Sometimes when I get longer and deeper into a discussion, it gets derailed and goes sideways, as a message board isnt the best format to read tine, intention and attitude.

I appreciate and respect other peoples opinions and I hope my points are being read in the right context as I intend them.

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Just saying I accept the gouging parking and beer price.  It doesn't change my standard of living paying "too much" for that stuff.

So if this is OK, why is it not OK for me to have an opinion in return (two way street) that signing Harper is not going to change Moreno's standard of living?

I think it's a fair question.

when did I say it's not ok for you to have an opinion?

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Really? When did he say that? I don't remember him saying that.

All he's ever said to me is they have a budget.

I don't ask how much profit he makes or how much he makes or how much his yacht costs because it's none of my business. 

Jeff wasn't there.a comment not too long ago about the Angels not making money or barely making money? I really thought there was?

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

when did I say it's not ok for you to have an opinion?

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?

[Mark68]

57 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

The Angels could also do the right thing and release him #joshhamilton

They could, but that doesn't release the Angels of the financial commitment to Pujols. Whether they release him or not, they'll still owe him $87 million.

[Dtwncbad]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff wasn't there.a comment not too long ago about the Angels not making money or barely making money? I really thought there was?

Feb 2018 story:

"Angels Owner Arte Moreno expects the franchise to "turn a profit this season" and again "draw 3 million fans" to Angel Stadium, according to Mike DiGiovanna of the L.A. TIMES. Moreno said the '16 season was the “first time we've lost money" since he bought the team in '03, and roster moves in '17 “pushed the Angels into the red for the second consecutive year.” He added prior to those years, “We had a really good run (of annual operating profits)." 

[Mark68]

Would Harper look great in Angel red, playing alongside Trout? He sure would. Is it realistic to think that the Angels can afford to extend Trout, sign Harper, pay the next three years of Albertross' contract and the next four years of Upton's contract? Hell no. 

First off, any extension of Trout is certain to be $40+ million/year. Maybe as much as $50 million. Pujols + Upton over the next three years will make $46, $50, $53 million combined. Adding Harper at ~ $35 million per annum means that thru 2021, the Angels would be paying $130-$150 million per year on four players. They would still have to fill out the other 36 players on a 40-man roster with the remaining funds.

How is that going to happen without a rise in cost of tickets, parking and concessions?

[Troll Daddy]

20 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

They could, but that doesn't release the Angels of the financial commitment to Pujols. Whether they release him or not, they'll still owe him $87 million.

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

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

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.

 

 

 

Ok.  So you are unwilling to do the work, got it.  

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

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.  

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.  

[Stradling]

47 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I don't think anyone at this point thinks Harper is even close to Trout.

Nobody is.  If you reject Harper for that reason then you reject every player on earth.

No, we reject Harper because the financial commitment will be very similar to Trout.  

[TroutAdell]

This all leads back to the awful Pujols contract. Other than Trout the Angels will not sign another large contract until the awful contract is off the books. Developing a strong system is, and will always be, the best way to build a successful franchise. The huge contracts should only be a factor if the play can put the team over the top. Harper is not one of those guys.  

[Dtwncbad]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  So you are unwilling to do the work, got it.  

What work EXACTLY can you do without real financials Strad?

I expect a real answer.

[2112]

56 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I don't think anyone at this point thinks Harper is even close to Trout.

Nobody is.  If you reject Harper for that reason then you reject every player on earth.

I don't reject Harper because he's not close to Trout.  I reject Harper because I don't think he is a difference maker.  A good player, yes, but not one that will put a good team over the top.

[Stradling]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What work EXACTLY can you do without real financials Strad?

I expect a real answer.

We know ticket sales, we know average ticket price, we know fan cost index, we know tv contracts, we know commitment to revenue sharing.   From that you can get a ballpark.  I’m guessing that ballpark isn’t going to be off by $100’s of millions of dollars.  We don’t know what it cost to run the ballpark, all the employees.  

[Dtwncbad]

20 minutes ago, Stradling said:

We know ticket sales, we know average ticket price, we know fan cost index, we know tv contracts, we know commitment to revenue sharing.   From that you can get a ballpark.  I’m guessing that ballpark isn’t going to be off by $100’s of millions of dollars.  We don’t know what it cost to run the ballpark, all the employees.  

Maybe we just see things differently.  I don't see the value in trying to produce a guess at an income statement or balance sheet because even with some numbers to at least start, there are too many missing numbers that you would be purely guessing.

What I did do is try to look at how somebody who DOES see actually financials might value a purchase price of a franchise and then try to back into a guess at profits.

My personal opinion is what I did was way less reckless than trying to guess other critical numbers, especially if I am simply trying to take a crack at if the owners are making way more than they suggest.

So please dont go the route of "you are not willing to do the work got it" stuff.  That's kind of derailing.

I am not treating you like that, am I?

It's been a pretty good conversation.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dtwncbad

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, NotMyCat said:

I don't reject Harper because he's not close to Trout.  I reject Harper because I don't think he is a difference maker.  A good player, yes, but not one that will put a good team over the top.

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.