Sign in to follow this  
Dollar Bill

LAT: How Arte Moreno might commit to $1 billion for the year, hoping for Cole in his stocking

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

companies take on debt to make strategic acquisitions all the time.  Sometimes there are opportunities you feel like you can't pass up.  

let's recap...

  • Arte has committed over $400M to Trout
  • $340M to buy a stadium/property
  • owes $130M to Pujols & Upton
  • is reportedly willing to give Cole $250M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lou said:

let's recap...

  • Arte has committed over $400M to Trout
  • $340M to buy a stadium/property
  • owes $130M to Pujols & Upton
  • is reportedly willing to give Cole $250M

And owns a team and will soon own the areas surrounding the ball park that make those look like petty cash. 

Nobody faults Arte for being cheap. He's a lot of things, but cheap certainly isn't one of them. But he's getting up there in age. You can't take it with you and in his position he's already made sure his family's future is set. 

I'd rather go out a champion, than not. I think Illitch saw it that way in Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lou said:

let's recap...

  • Arte has committed over $400M to Trout
  • $340M to buy a stadium/property
  • owes $130M to Pujols & Upton
  • is reportedly willing to give Cole $250M

it will be very interesting to see how the stadium acquisition is structured financially and whether he leveraged some equity to acquire that vs. just paying cash.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lou said:

let's recap...

  • Arte has committed over $400M to Trout
  • $340M to buy a stadium/property
  • owes $130M to Pujols & Upton
  • is reportedly willing to give Cole $250M

and some of you think it's no big deal to give another guy $220M+? 

I think it's time to let the billionaire owner decide how to run the team while you guys decide whether macaroni or potato salad would go better with the hot dogs you're planning to serve at your above-ground pool party next week .

Of the items listed, paying 340M to buy the stadium is probably the best long term investment Arte can make this year for the business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dodgers went on a reckless spending spree and it more or less worked for them.     They didn't get a ring, but they've won their division seven years in a row with two trips to the WS.     That compares very favorably to our one division title and no playoff W's over the same period.

But...  The Dodgers didn't just spend big on FA.....they KEPT spending  to bring in new guys when FA signing didn't work out.   I do not believe Arte will do that.    In fact, Arte seems to be proud of his self-determined budget.    That means huge high risk contracts are not a good move for the Angels.    You could argue that they aren't good for any team in the post-steroid era, but they are an especially bad fit for our owner.   

I hope we make some smart and reasonable FA signings this year to shore up the SP, 1B and C situations.   IMHO that is going to be the biggest bang for the buck.   Solid talent is going to want solid money, and that is fine.   Just avoid the massive risk six, seven or eight year contracts....especially for pitchers. 

I'd much rather see a balanced team built around Mike Trout over the next few years than see the team try to buy a ring in 2020 and end up being financially hamstrung until 2028.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

companies take on debt to make strategic acquisitions all the time.  Sometimes there are opportunities you feel like you can't pass up.  

But companies must also maintain a certain cash flow to allow the debt to be properly leveraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rally Gorilla said:

The Dodgers went on a reckless spending spree and it more or less worked for them.     They didn't get a ring, but they've won their division seven years in a row with two trips to the WS.     That compares very favorably to our one division title and no playoff W's over the same period.

But...  The Dodgers didn't just spend big on FA.....they KEPT spending  to bring in new guys when FA signing didn't work out.   I do not believe Arte will do that.    In fact, Arte seems to be proud of his self-determined budget.    That means huge high risk contracts are not a good move for the Angels.    You could argue that they aren't good for any team in the post-steroid era, but they are an especially bad fit for our owner.   

I hope we make some smart and reasonable FA signings this year to shore up the SP, 1B and C situations.   IMHO that is going to be the biggest bang for the buck.   Solid talent is going to want solid money, and that is fine.   Just avoid the massive risk six, seven or eight year contracts....especially for pitchers. 

I'd much rather see a balanced team built around Mike Trout over the next few years than see the team try to buy a ring in 2020 and end up being financially hamstrung until 2028.    

Dodgers took on hundreds of million dollars of bad contacts from the red Sox in order to get Gonzales. That trade didn't really help the dodgers.

One could be critical of them that they spent so much but refused to spend an extra 20 million or trade some prospects for a bullpen.

To me that's the parallel. I think we are 40 million away from competing. Not spending that with the other pieces in place doesn't make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

it will be very interesting to see how the stadium acquisition is structured financially and whether he leveraged some equity to acquire that vs. just paying cash.  

Considering the that land/stadium were worth about 3 times what he paid, he made like half a BIL in the deal and already had no debt so... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't the Angels in theory trade Upton if they did sign two or three of those guys? That would help with the payroll and luxury tax. Cole/Strasburg, Rendon, and Goodwin is a better than Cole/Strasburg and Upton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

 I think we are 40 million away from competing. Not spending that with the other pieces in place doesn't make sense. 

So far, Arte has limited spending for his GM's based on his business model  (regardless of what makes sense on the field).   He has been willing to go a little over his self-imposed budget, but not a lot.    And he makes sure everyone knows that he went over what he would like to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Couldn't the Angels in theory trade Upton if they did sign two or three of those guys? That would help with the payroll and luxury tax. Cole/Strasburg, Rendon, and Goodwin is a better than Cole/Strasburg and Upton.

Upton has a no trade clause, so he'd have to agree and that would probably take some value out of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Couldn't the Angels in theory trade Upton if they did sign two or three of those guys? That would help with the payroll and luxury tax. Cole/Strasburg, Rendon, and Goodwin is a better than Cole/Strasburg and Upton.

theoretically but not practically.  He has a NTC, is owed a decent amount of money and is coming off a down year.  Even if he agreed to be traded, you'd have to eat a bunch of money to make it happen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eligrba said:

But companies must also maintain a certain cash flow to allow the debt to be properly leveraged.

True. But in this case, Moreno does.

With the stadium deal worked out, at a pretty sweet deal for Moreno, and the team if I recall having no debt, hes in a good spot.

And fwiw, the hype if they signed cole and another name is worth it in a lot more ways. Espn games, playoff games, etc bring in their own money.

Im not saying it makes sense to do it. The accountants are the only ones who do. But the angels very much could afford to do this (if they chose to). 

The risk is that the contracts are duds, obviously.

But...whereas doing it very well could make money.... not doing it almost guarantees losing money. Both on the field and in the media (after the last few years), this team needs a shot in the arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

True. But in this case, Moreno does.

With the stadium deal worked out, at a pretty sweet deal for Moreno, and the team if I recall having no debt, hes in a good spot.

And fwiw, the hype if they signed cole and another name is worth it in a lot more ways. Espn games, playoff games, etc bring in their own money.

Im not saying it makes sense to do it. The accountants are the only ones who do. But the angels very much could afford to do this (if they chose to). 

The risk is that the contracts are duds, obviously.

But...whereas doing it very well could make money.... not doing it almost guarantees losing money. Both on the field and in the media (after the last few years), this team needs a shot in the arm.

It most certainly does need a shot in the arm. Something needs to change in this organization. There's a lot they're doing right, but it had not resulted in winning ball games and that's the bottom line. 

Joe Maddon is a good start. Calloway too. But what concerns me most, is that Arte needed to step in to make that happen, otherwise, this would still be an Ausmus and Doug White led dugout and that just didn't work out. It concerns me that Billy Eppler thought that was the answer.

Unless this team changes on the mound very considerably, and I'm talking a lot more than Dylan Bundy, in both quality and quantity, then it's time for Eppler to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Lou said:

no, it doesn't.

It doesnt have to be cole. Doesnt have to be any name everyone is pining over. 

But every season we dont make the playoffs is money lost.

Now, if we spend X, and only make x back, yeah, we invested poorly. But if your entertainment product isnt entertaining, youre going to lose money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

It doesnt have to be cole. Doesnt have to be any name everyone is pining over. 

But every season we dont make the playoffs is money lost.

Now, if we spend X, and only make x back, yeah, we invested poorly. But if your entertainment product isnt entertaining, youre going to lose money.

but overall, the team won't be losing money.

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