You know what is really expensive?

[Inside Pitch]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

you're thinking of Sidd Finch, aren't you?

Him and the guy @Dtwncbad is talking about ...  Also the guy that used to pitch in the Bugs Bunny cartoons...

[Tank]

11 minutes ago, True Grich said:

"Thrusting a microphone" is a very aggressive move.

it's a microaggression and should be reported to the proper authorities.

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

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.

 

I have no idea. 
 

EDIT: I want to add that there are a ton of variables involved here that make predicting impossible. Is it better to win one WS and be out of contention other years than to always be in contention but not win? Is winning a 2nd WS less valuable than the 1st? Also, there are never guarantees no matter what you spend, and certainly a point of diminishing returns. 
 

Anyway, I am sure that winning is better than not winning, but I can’t even begin to guess at the numbers.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[Dtwncbad]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I have no idea. 
 

EDIT: I want to add that there are a ton of variables involved here that make predicting impossible. Is it better to win one WS and be out of contention other years than to always be in contention but not win? Is winning a 2nd WS less valuable than the 1st? Also, there are never guarantees no matter what you spend, and certainly a point of diminishing returns. 
 

Anyway, I am sure that winning is better than not winning, but I can’t even begin to guess at the numbers.

Fair, thanks.  All I am saying is the most valuable franchises are usually the ones that have some history of winning, some legacy of winning, that builds the brand and the stability of the fan base and the associated financial support necessary.

At some point you better win, or you will not build the same equity in the franchise.

It is time to win.  I see the Angels as recognizably slipping in its brand equity if the team fails to be highly competitive over the next decade while the greatest player is suiting up year after year.

We are all speculating, yes.   But I speculate that winning will mostly or completely pay for itself year over year, and in a decade the winning could be an extra $500 m, or $750m or $1b in team value?

Again, that’s MY guess.  If it is way high, I can’t apologize because we cant know enough about the finances to do any real math.  But absent math, we do know the Yankees are worth way more because they have an unshakable fanbase driven by dozens of WS championships and an insane number of legendary players associated with all that winning.

The Angels have one WS and no true retired legends.  They now have a true legend.  Add some rings to the mix here and it is a game changer in terms of team value.

[kevinb]

I don’t think winning matters nearly as much as you think it does in terms of how much a franchise is worth. When was the last time the Knicks won a title? But if today they went for sale they’d sell for the highest amount a teams ever sold for. What did the Dodgers sell for and they haven’t won since 1988? Clippers sold for 2 billion dollars and they have won nothing. It’s not about what you’ve done winning wise it’s location, stadium deal and live rights. Winning is minimal. Did Marlins sell for more because they have two WS? @Dtwncbad

[tdawg87]

54 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

Buncha Haters, @Rally Gorilla.  During the hot stove silly season, people here don't like to discuss that this franchise for a lot of years chases the expensive new toy, the toy becomes quasi-malfunctioning almost immediately, and then the franchise is in a permanent hold waiting for sh*tty contracts to come off the books.  Arte has paid premium dollars for GM Jr, Josh Hamilton and Pujols, and these guys crapped the bed practically on opening day.

 

Maybe Cole is the play to make.  But to dismiss the downside so pissily, as these chumps here are doing, is silly.

He also paid premium dollars for Vlad Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, and Kelvim Escobar. Not to mention Mike Trout, but that's not really a fair comparison.

The point is, everyone remembers the signings that didn't work out, but forget the ones that did.

[yk9001]

5 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

He also paid premium dollars for Vlad Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, and Kelvim Escobar. Not to mention Mike Trout, but that's not really a fair comparison.

The point is, everyone remembers the signings that didn't work out, but forget the ones that did.

Arte's on a 14 year losing streak. 

(no I don't count Trout)

I guess he's due.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I don’t think winning matters nearly as much as you think it does in terms of how much a franchise is worth. When was the last time the Knicks won a title? But if today they went for sale they’d sell for the highest amount a teams ever sold for. What did the Dodgers sell for and they haven’t won since 1988? Clippers sold for 2 billion dollars and they have won nothing. It’s not about what you’ve done winning wise it’s location, stadium deal and live rights. Winning is minimal. Did Marlins sell for more because they have two WS? @Dtwncbad

Any team is worth more when it wins more as it builds a legacy and history for its fans to be attached to.

For example, the Knicks would be worth Even more if they had a run of titles.

The Dodgers have a long history of legends and championships that are entrenched in their brand.  They don’t have to win a WS every couple of years to maintain that.

Yes some teams sell for huge amounts without a championship.  And they would sell for even more if they buyer was purchasing a winning legacy that is attached to that uniform.

 

[tdawg87]

9 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

Arte's on a 14 year losing streak. 

(no I don't count Trout)

I guess he's due.

So am I.

[kevinb]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Any team is worth more when it wins more as it builds a legacy and history for its fans to be attached to.

For example, the Knicks would be worth Even more if they had a run of titles.

The Dodgers have a long history of legends and championships that are entrenched in their brand.  They don’t have to win a WS every couple of years to maintain that.

Yes some teams sell for huge amounts without a championship.  And they would sell for even more if they buyer was purchasing a winning legacy that is attached to that uniform.

 

Doubt it. And how can u even measure that. The Angels sold for 160 ish right after they won a title. So your saying they’d have sold for what with out a title? It’s not about winning it’s about live rights continuing to go up because no ones watching any sort of anything on tv other than that. It’s about where it’s located in terms of population and numbers and tv eyes. And it’s about actual location. Hell the royals just sold for what and they’re in KC. With or with out a title the Padres would sell for a ton of money right now. Houston hasn’t won a title since the early 90s in basketball and what’d it sell for? Winning doesn’t mean nearly as much as you think it does. And it’s not the end all be all in terms of profit. The Angels had 3 million fans show up to their games and they had 90 losses. If they Angels won the next 5 titles in a row they still wouldn’t sell for more than the Dodgers did. Dodgers are in LA proper

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Kevinb said:

Doubt it. And how can u even measure that. The Angels sold for 160 ish right after they won a title. So your saying they’d have sold for what with out a title? It’s not about winning it’s about live rights continuing to go up because no ones watching any sort of anything on tv other than that. It’s about where it’s located in terms of population and numbers and tv eyes. And it’s about actual location. Hell the royals just sold for what and they’re in KC. With or with out a title the Padres would sell for a ton of money right now. Houston hasn’t won a title since the early 90s in basketball and what’d it sell for? Winning doesn’t mean nearly as much as you think it does. And it’s not the end all be all in terms of profit. The Angels had 3 million fans show up to their games and they had 90 losses. 

We disagree.  We have different opinions and neither can prove our point because all we have is speculation.

 

[eaterfan]

1 hour ago, yk9001 said:

Buncha Haters, @Rally Gorilla.  During the hot stove silly season, people here don't like to discuss that this franchise for a lot of years chases the expensive new toy, the toy becomes quasi-malfunctioning almost immediately, and then the franchise is in a permanent hold waiting for sh*tty contracts to come off the books.  Arte has paid premium dollars for GM Jr, Josh Hamilton and Pujols, and these guys crapped the bed practically on opening day.

 

Maybe Cole is the play to make.  But to dismiss the downside so pissily, as these chumps here are doing, is silly.

I don't think it's unfair to be weary of FA contracts, but at some point a team just has to bite the bullet. Hopefully it's the correct time. For the last few seasons I've advocated avoiding the high priced FA, but I think this is the year to break the bank. The Angels have built the farm into decent shape, there is a young core that can contribute for the next few seasons. Now is the time to supplement it. Plus, the argument that we have signed so many big free agents who didn't work out has kept us from signing any big FA seems self-defeating. 

[kevinb]

6 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

We disagree.  We have different opinions and neither can prove our point because all we have is speculation.

 

True. But. Knicks have been the most horribly run franchise in the NBA haven’t won anything in forever and a day and yet are still the number one franchise and would clearly sell for either the most money or second most money if the Lakers were to be sold and it wouldn’t be close. Golden State is up there and I’d be willing to bet that it has more to do with all the tech companies and money up in Northern California than it has to do with them winning 3 titles. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2019/02/06/forbes-releases-21st-annual-nba-team-valuations/amp/

 

[yk9001]

A team doesn't have to bite the bullet.  Crap, the Nationals just won a World Series LETTING GO of the shiniest bauble of last offseason.  They signed a FA contract for their third best pitcher on their staff for 6/140 and he was a stud.

The Padres signed the second shiniest bauble of last year's FA list, and the team immediately spent the season in the Missing Persons program.

 

I'm sick of waiting for dead money contracts to come off the books.  I am sick of seeing teams like the Dodgers and Astros and Nationals bring up multiple good young players.

The Angels went the entire decade spending money, and didn't win one frigging playoff game.  I'd love to invest more in the farm.

What you just saw last month of Gerrit Cole is the best you will ever see.  The Angels always seem to pay for the success of a player on another team.

[T.G.]

2 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

What you just saw last month of Gerrit Cole is the best you will ever see. 

Yup... that's entirely possible.  *Gulp*

I still want to see him in an Angels uniform.

[yk9001]

8 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

True. But. Knicks have been the most horribly run franchise in the NBA haven’t won anything in forever and a day and yet are still the number one franchise and would clearly sell for either the most money or second most money if the Lakers were to be sold and it wouldn’t be close. Golden State is up there and I’d be willing to bet that it has more to do with all the tech companies and money up in Northern California than it has to do with them winning 3 titles. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2019/02/06/forbes-releases-21st-annual-nba-team-valuations/amp/

 

The Clippers, a laughably horribly run franchise, entrenched in a hideous racial scandal, and a complete loser with zero winning history, sold for more than TWICE the previous best sale price of an NBA franchise.  Twice.

 

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

The Clippers, a laughably horribly run franchise, entrenched in a hideous racial scandal, and a complete loser with zero winning history, sold for more than TWICE the previous best sale price of an NBA franchise.  Twice.

 

Yup. And just think what the Knicks would sell for. The Rockets with two titles in the 90s with more stars and a better run organization. Sold for 200 million more than the dysfunctional Clippers years later. If the Clippers sold today they’d sell for way more than they did previously. 

[eaterfan]

11 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

A team doesn't have to bite the bullet.  Crap, the Nationals just won a World Series LETTING GO of the shiniest bauble of last offseason.  They signed a FA contract for their third best pitcher on their staff for 6/140 and he was a stud.

The Padres signed the second shiniest bauble of last year's FA list, and the team immediately spent the season in the Missing Persons program.

 

I'm sick of waiting for dead money contracts to come off the books.  I am sick of seeing teams like the Dodgers and Astros and Nationals bring up multiple good young players.

The Angels went the entire decade spending money, and didn't win one frigging playoff game.  I'd love to invest more in the farm.

What you just saw last month of Gerrit Cole is the best you will ever see.  The Angels always seem to pay for the success of a player on another team.

Yes, we should follow the Nats system and develop guys like Scherzer and Corbin and not sign any big FA pitchers.

[yk9001]

Just now, eaterfan said:

Yes, we should follow the Nats system and develop guys like Scherzer and Corbin and not sign any big FA pitchers.

Haha, well played. (Scherzer)

 

Corbin is 6/140.  That's peanuts today.

 

[Rally Gorilla]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Name the available starting pitcher that would help the Angels more than Cole.

Any solid SP without a contract that will hamstring the team for the next seven or eight years.    

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Any solid SP without a contract that will hamstring the team for the next seven or eight years.    

What do you mean hamstring the team?  Make it unrealistic to sign premium free agents?

So don’t sign expensive premium free agents because it will prevent you from signing expensive premium free agents?

[Rally Gorilla]

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

What do you mean hamstring the team?  Make it unrealistic to sign premium free agents?

So don’t sign expensive premium free agents because it will prevent you from signing expensive premium free agents?

Come on now.   You know what I mean.   We've been playing the "buy cheap and see what sticks" game in several areas while we waited for big contracts to come off the books.    Do you want more Blantons?   

[tdawg87]

10 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

Any solid SP without a contract that will hamstring the team for the next seven or eight years.    

So Wheeler? That's fair.

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

A team doesn't have to bite the bullet.  Crap, the Nationals just won a World Series LETTING GO of the shiniest bauble of last offseason.  They signed a FA contract for their third best pitcher on their staff for 6/140 and he was a stud.

The Padres signed the second shiniest bauble of last year's FA list, and the team immediately spent the season in the Missing Persons program.

 

I'm sick of waiting for dead money contracts to come off the books.  I am sick of seeing teams like the Dodgers and Astros and Nationals bring up multiple good young players.

The Angels went the entire decade spending money, and didn't win one frigging playoff game.  I'd love to invest more in the farm.

What you just saw last month of Gerrit Cole is the best you will ever see.  The Angels always seem to pay for the success of a player on another team.

You are sick of waiting for dead money to come off the books?  Why would you want money to be freed up when you don’t want to pursue expensive free agents?

[yk9001]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

What do you mean hamstring the team?  Make it unrealistic to sign premium free agents?

So don’t sign expensive premium free agents because it will prevent you from signing expensive premium free agents?

When the Angels signed Pujols to a premium contract and it became apparent a few years in that he was drastically underperfoming, the Angels made no effort for years to find a suitable replacement, because after all, you can't bench Pujols.

So the Angels were stuck with a loaded Depends diaper at first place, nobody on the roster better to replace him, with no thoughts about it every offseason, and the board nutswingers would say, "You can't bench him! Nobody better to replace him!"

It became this weird, circular argument of fail.  The Angels would never upgrade at first, and there would be nobody better to replace him.

 

Bad FA contracts are multi-faceted