Sign in to follow this  
Dtwncbad

You know what is really expensive?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, True Grich said:

@Dtwncbad is a Scott Boras asset.

Cole‘a talent is a Scott Boras asset.  The Angel interest in winning is a Scott Boras asset.  Arte Moreno’s interest in building the Angel brand and building wealth is a Scott Boras Asset.  The fans interest in having talent on the roster is a Scott Boras asset.

Scott Boras is obnoxious but so what?  I can criticize his style sometimes but the reality is he a very successful agent.  I personally have little to no interest in teams “getting a great deal” on a player.  I am perfectly comfortable with agents actively working for the player to maximize their income when the teams all have professionals actively working to minimize their costs.

I think it’s kind of funny when Boras gets railed for things like posturing with a “mystery” team when you know that teams just as often bluff with “we have another solution in place ready to go if you don’t want this deal.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stradling said:

You can use all the words in the world but at the end of the day it takes two to make a deal. 

Agree.  And that’s why I roll my eyes at the Boras hate, as if he literally fully controls a transaction, and is the only side posturing/bluffing/exercising leverage/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us really know what motivates Arte.  We'd like to believe he wants to win and I think few doubt that he actually wants to win.  The question is how badly? 

The way I see it, my 2020 season tickers are paid for already.  Give me a team that I can get excited about and make me feel like the money I spent will be worth it.  I want to be entertained and last year was anything but entertaining.  Going to games was a chore. Watching games; especially in the last month of the season, was hard. 2002 seems like a million years ago.  Heck, 2014 seems like a long time ago.  I'm in the "do whatever it takes" camp to sign Cole and other key free agents.  I'm invested in the team already.  I'm willing to spend my hard earned money for tickets - but I don't want to go just for the sake of going.  I want to see a team that is playing for something. 

From the time pitchers and catchers report to the moment the last pitch is thrown - I'm all in.  Baseball is a huge part of my day to day for those 9-10 months of the year.  It's supposed to be fun. It's been a while since it has been fun and I'm tired of the losing.  With each losing season, I feel less motivated to watch.  I remember what losing was like as an Angel fan in the early years.  2002 and the years that followed spoiled me.  I don't know how a fan base that supports a perennial loser does that. I don't want to go back to the way things were prior to the pre-2002 era.

I stopped watching the NBA years ago.  I stopped watching the NFL when I stopped playing fantasy football.  I've tried to watch hockey, but it just doesn't interest me.  Baseball is it for me.  Angels baseball is it for me.

So yeah, @Dtwncbad, I hear you.

Edited by True Grich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Cole‘a talent is a Scott Boras asset.  The Angel interest in winning is a Scott Boras asset.  Arte Moreno’s interest in building the Angel brand and building wealth is a Scott Boras Asset.  The fans interest in having talent on the roster is a Scott Boras asset.

Scott Boras is obnoxious but so what?  I can criticize his style sometimes but the reality is he a very successful agent.  I personally have little to no interest in teams “getting a great deal” on a player.  I am perfectly comfortable with agents actively working for the player to maximize their income when the teams all have professionals actively working to minimize their costs.

I think it’s kind of funny when Boras gets railed for things like posturing with a “mystery” team when you know that teams just as often bluff with “we have another solution in place ready to go if you don’t want this deal.”

It was a joke...

I'm the last guy who is actually going to bash Boras.  I'm all for the players getting as much money as they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Agree.  And that’s why I roll my eyes at the Boras hate, as if he literally fully controls a transaction, and is the only side posturing/bluffing/exercising leverage/etc.

A couple things, one I don’t hate Boras because at the end of the day he works for the player.  Second, because of how he negotiates there’s literally no way to know if you are bidding against yourself.  So Arte could play the waiting game and think his $250 million offer is the best but there’s a real possibility of getting Kawhi’d.   That would be much worse than switching to plan B before the arms are gone off the market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What exactly is the objection to players making monster money?  We never hear anyone have any objection to Cameron Diaz making $40m a year making 2 lame movies.

3). The Angels can afford a staggering increase in payroll

The first point only matters as it relates to the 2nd. I don’t think anyone minds that Albert Pujols makes so much money. What they mind is that the money he makes can’t go to someone else more productive. That’s a legitimate concern for any team, and thus also for the fans. 
 

As to your second point, we’ve been through this before and I don’t want to get into again, but I do want to remind people that this your opinion and suspicion, nothing more. I’m not going to say whether it’s right or wrong because I don’t know. None of us do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed watching the Nationals run to the championship.  I was over joyed at seeing Howie Kendrick get a ring and doing big things in the postseason.  But none of it comes close to how I felt in 2002 when the Angels won it all.  I want to experience that again.  I feel blessed that I got to experience it once - but it only made me hungry to experience it again.

Eppler fooled me into believing that Harvey, Allen and Cahill could do the job.  I was duped. 

I'm not going to fall for it again. 

I want to see a revamped, kick-ass, rotation with a hoss like Cole leading the way.  I want to see some swagger.  I want to know when I tune in or show up - I'm going to see a team that deserves my attention and has earned my patronage. AND I want to see it in 2020 and beyond. I live in So. Cal - I have lots of other options to spend my money and my time.  Don't make me look elsewhere.

I don't want to hear things like "bounce back year" or "upside" any more. I don't want to hear how "if everything goes right..."

I want a roster that sets high expectations and then goes out and delivers on it.

This team doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the farm system to solve all the problems.  They need to spend.  Arte needs to spend and spend big.  I believe he will.  He's done it before.  The Angels just need to spend that money wisely and not miss.  I know that's not easy, but it doesn't change my expectation. 

I don't often show it on AW - but I'm fed up.  I'm glad Eppler is on the hot seat.  He needs to make this the best off season of his career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One one hand DTown makes a good arguement that Cole is a difference maker and the Angels are in need of that kind of pitcher.

Then real world economics come in to play and the same as Trout without a pitching staff is innefective, Cole without a second tier pitcher to support a staff with much lesser talent is only going to impact 30 games. At some point economics of baseball in terms of not only individual player cost but value for that cost comes into effect. What you pay Cole comes out of the budget for the rest of the roster.

So, in terms of getting the most bang for the buck, is Cole's 30 games more valuable on their own over picking up the two of the next tiered pitchers for roughly the same money and having dollars left over to pick up a catcher like Grandel? You have effectively greatly increased the value of three positions over one and a lesser effective pitcher to stay within budget, leaving little money to adress catching.

Tough decision to make. If the Angels had more solid young pitching I would jump on making Cole the one and only focus. Since there is weakness in the core staff I would favor putting as many better arms in the rotation to allow less of the lower end pitching to be placed into the rotation.

So I guess it comes down to how the staff looks better on paper for 162 games as opposed to assuming there will be 7 games in late October to contend with. It would look better with Cole as the ACE but needs a support staff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am already seeing fans saying things like, “If Cole is going to get $XXX, then that is ridiculous.  The Angels should let someone else pay it.”

A few thoughts.

1). It’s all stupid money.  But the money is there.  It will be in either the owners pocket or the players pocket.  Anything freely negotiated means both sides agree.  So why should I be rooting for Cole to sign somewhere else rather than make a deal here where both sides agree?

2). What exactly is the objection to players making monster money?  We never hear anyone have any objection to Cameron Diaz making $40m a year making 2 lame movies.

3). The Angels can afford a staggering increase in payroll MORE than they can afford to get cute trying to save money right now and continue miss the postseason for this whole era.  The team brand is extremely, extremely important in the value of the franchise, and nothing will build MORE wealth for Arte Moreno over the next 5-7 years than being a mainstay in the deep postseason.

The Angels are flat out not going to be a mainstay in the deep postseason without premium front line starters.  The organization simply does not have the frontline starter solution in house or about to emerge in the minors.

I am not saying the Angels can not possibly win if they don’t sign Cole.  I am saying, however, that there is almost no excuse for the Angels to not be the clear high bidder.

Given the Angels specific situation today, I just don’t understand why any fan would take the stance of “That’s too much, let someone else pay it.”

The Angels decisions here will go a long way in determining if the Angel brand will move toward Yankee/Red Sox/Dodgers or will move toward the entrenched third tier franchises.  The franchise value will reflect which way they go.  If Arte wants to win, he signs Cole.  And if he wants to build wealth, he signs Cole.

This team has to win, and they have to have the winning era start now.

Not aggressively landing the pitching you need right now will be more expensive to the owner than simply paying the market price for what the team needs.

I personally would not fault any fan for being fed up (and becoming a passive instead of active fan) if the Angels miss out on what they need over trying to “save” money by not paying what it takes to address the need in the mound.

The path to winning with this roster is expensive.     The alternative is more expensive.

Overall I like this owner.  I think he wants to win.  I have to believe he sees what he needs to do and will do it.

Yet if and when he signs Cole we are going to see all kinds of buyers remorse regret posts over the money.  We already see the posts now!  I don’t understand why when sustained losing with obvious vacancies that go unaddressed is the narrative that will cost more.

As a fellow fan, I appreciate what you've written here for the most part but I see it more as an emotional plea.  This is a business decision and it should be.  Trying to couple that to building the Angels brand and how that could actually translate into more money in the future is all fine and good, but it's fraught with too many variables as a primary consideration for making that decision.  Yes, it should be a consideration, but if that's the main consideration, you're going to end up on the wrong side of where you need to be more often than not.  

This really is the exact type of selling point than an agent would make to an owner and why their ends up being long term damage when teams include it as a reason to go in one direction or another.  

Frankly, it's why there has been a rift between the players and owners of late because teams have been much better about not letting this type of stuff cloud their judgement.  

It has become a pure business decision and it should be.  So it's not just about whether the addition of Cole or any other free agent can make the team better.  It's about the sustainability of such and the downstream impact.  

I personally don't give a hoot how much Gerrit Cole makes.  What I care about is how each and every transaction impacts the team in the short and long term.  Many of the things you cite above seem like arguments used in signing Albert.  That shouldn't stop the Angels from signing Cole though.  Whether that's viable needs to include what they think he will be at age 34-36 when paying his back loaded salary of 40m per year and what resources the team will have at that point.  

If you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, then you have to accept what that means in two, three, five and seven years from now.  If you are only playing for the first 4 years and hoping for the best in the last four then you have to be willing to accept what that means.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The first point only matters as it relates to the 2nd. I don’t think anyone minds that Albert Pujols makes so much money. What they mind is that the money he makes can’t go to someone else more productive. That’s a legitimate concern for any team, and thus also for the fans.

When the Angels signed Pujol,s he was coming off a great season and an amazing post season. I was over joyed. What transpired since then has been tragic in many ways.  We get it. We know that his salary has hampered the Angels ability to do more.  We also know there is risk in any long term, high dollar contract.  I don't typically bitch about Pujols' contract because when he signed I was all in. I was beyond stoked.  Unlike a lot of Angel fans I don't harbor any ill will for Albert.  Josh Hamilton is another story.

What we are saying is - we know the risk - do it anyway.  The alternative requires more patience than most of us actually have.

Pitchers like Gerrit Cole don't come along every day.  Hes going to cost a ton and there's going to be risk.  Some of us are screaming at the top of our lungs... DO IT ANYWAY!

If you're an owner in THIS market, you'd better find a way to make your team relevant.  The paid attendance might have been 3 million for the season, but the actual attendance spoke volumes.  I wonder what the TV ratings were?  Did they suffer too? 

Arte - Put your big boy pants on and get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be clear... I don't care if the Angels sign 3 quality starters instead of Cole with the same money.  They just need to do whatever it takes. They have to figure it out - but no more Harvey, Cahill and Allen experiments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

If you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, then you have to accept what that means in two, three, five and seven years from now.  If you are only playing for the first 4 years and hoping for the best in the last four then you have to be willing to accept what that means.  

I'm fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, True Grich said:

I'm fine with that.

Frankly, I am too.  But to a certain point.  I don't know what that point is because I don't know what the payroll limits are and what other things they are thinking about to improve the team.  If getting Cole means getting Miley and Castro as secondary pieces then I'm not sure that makes sense.  If we get Cole, Wheeler and dArnaud then that's different.  

It doesn't just impact later but could impact now.  Arte has indicated that payroll is going up, but how much?  If I had to guess, it's not going to be an absurd amount even though many of us as fan expect that or think we deserve it.  If you think he's going to add 60+ mil in payroll and push 200+m over the next three years or so then I think you are mistaken.  And to me, doing that makes the addition of Cole more worthwhile.  For those that don't believe that will happen and the assumption is that payroll will go up a bit but not to that level then I can see how they might prefer other options.  

It's as much about what they do in addition to Cole that will make the difference.  But I can tell you that whatever we think we deserve as fans isn't going to be a factor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all out of my control (Thankfully). 

The only thing I can control is how I react to what they do. 

I usually give them the benefit of the doubt when they make a decision. 

I'm at that point where I focus primarily on Arte.  He's the only constant since 2003.  He's tried.  He really has.  He's just made the wrong decisions.  Since he's been owner - the two best FA signings have been Vlad and Torii.  Everyone else hasn't been worth the cost.  The Angels can't afford to miss this off-season.  This might be the most important off-season in recent memory.  What they do this year will set them up for either success or failure for years to come, assuming that the contracts they will be giving will be for multiple years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The first point only matters as it relates to the 2nd. I don’t think anyone minds that Albert Pujols makes so much money. What they mind is that the money he makes can’t go to someone else more productive. That’s a legitimate concern for any team, and thus also for the fans. 
 

As to your second point, we’ve been through this before and I don’t want to get into again, but I do want to remind people that this your opinion and suspicion, nothing more. I’m not going to say whether it’s right or wrong because I don’t know. None of us do. 

Jeff, respectfully, you have either deliberately or accidentally removed the second half of my main point (my opinion) on the Angels being able to afford taking on some large contracts.

It is even in the tile of the thread.

In YOUR professional opinion, what is the delta in the value of the franchise in 10 years between winning a couple of World Series (or at least being very relevant deep into postseasons regularly) and spending a decade at .500?

And let me remind everyone that this will be Jeff Fletcher’s opinion, because nobody CAN know it for sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this