Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Prediction: The Angels won't spend as much as you think


Docwaukee

Recommended Posts

We are seeing more and more come across the wire about mlb and the potential losses or decreased revenues from 2020 and how that could impact 2021.  Manfred talking about 3 bil in losses.  Teams cutting staff.  Owners crying poverty.   

Arte, while he's willing to spend, tends to stay pretty tight to a budget and seems to pay close attention to the bottom line when it comes to money.  

So I thought I would do a little back of the napkin math.  Per reports, MLB teams get about 40% of their revenue from gate receipts and the Angels normally have revenue in the 375m range which means about 150m comes from people going to games.  

Granted, I think we will see fans return to games next year, I don't think the halos will be seeing the number of fans they've had or claimed to have in the recent past.  Even conservatively, I think we can assume at least a decrease in gate revenue by about 1/3rd which is about 50m.  Because not only will there be fewer fans due to restrictions, but I think people will just be less likely to go out as frequently (at least for awhile) and there is less ancillary income for people to spend with layoffs and furloughs etc.  

If they're able to cut about 10m from areas that don't include the major league roster.  Leaving about another 40m to cut from somewhere else.  Can you assume that fans will come back in full force down the line?  And the financial snowball effect that has on teams going forward like with franchise values etc.  

Will the mlbpa be agreeable to kicking the can down the road with deferrals and other cost saving maneuvers?  Would a player under a guaranteed contract agree to deferring some money with no interest or even taking a pay cut so that free agency can remain as stout as it's been?  That's gonna create some internal conflict among the players should that be suggested.   I am sure the free agent prices will get pushed down about but all existing player contracts, arb estimates, league min salaries, draft bonuses - essentially all of baseball's financial infrastructure has been modeled on existing revenue so it sorta falls apart if you lose 1/3rd of that.  Will TV deals get renegotiated? Will mlb kick more money to the teams from streaming and other media.  

But back to the halos, with 40m less in revenue to the mlb roster for 2021, what happens?  That's puts the team right at about where it currently stands from a payroll standpoint and as we know, the team needs help.  I think they'll split the difference and maybe add about 15-20m to what is already committed (or likely to be).  

I think we're gonna see some interesting and odd moves from quite a few teams this off season that or more financially driven than baseball team on the field driven.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dochalo said:

Arte, while he's willing to spend, tends to stay pretty tight to a budget and seems to pay close attention to the bottom line when it comes to money. 

And that is why we haven't one a playoff game in many many years. We need to spend on an Ace pitcher or if not wanted to over spend then we need to lose 100 games a year until we draft enough prospects to build our homegrown talent. Problem with plan is it will continue to waste Trout's prime years unless we trade him. The other problem with tanking is Arte is old and may join  Gene Autry at never seeing The Angels win a WS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Agreed @Dochalo but the next logical question has to be what that money can net the Angels. With payrolls likely being cut across the board, and many players being DFA'd, the potential for significant upgrades may still exist at 20 million.

I think it's likely they'll still upgrade the team, I just don't think we'll see payroll at 190m and I don't think there's a chance we get Bauer.  

What could happen is that we see a ton of trades for guys with 1-2 years left for lesser prospects than normal just so some teams can get rid of some payroll.  

Maybe we target teams where their revenue is a larger percentage of gate receipts than most teams like Milwaukee and Colorado.  Or teams that have higher ratios payroll vs. revenue.  Again, like Colorado.  I bet Houston creeps into that mix as do the Reds, maybe the Mets, maybe the Nats.  The Angels are also more likely on the wrong side of the ratio of revenue to payroll to gate receipts.  

One thing the halos could do is get creative with their 2021 allotments.  They could extend both Bundy and Heaney to deals that would pay them less than their arb number and back load to 2023 or 2024.  They could also do the same with any free agents they would sign that have more than 1 year.  

I also think the impact on the off season we'll see for 2021 is a crap ton of 1yr deals.  Even for some really good players.  I think there will be a flood of relievers that teams won't want to pay arb to.  That's where I think a big number of the non-tenders are going to come from.  For the Angels, Robles is toast for sure and I think there's a really good chance that they let Cam and Andriese go as well.  

The MLBPA has essentially not allowed for existing contracts to be restructured in the past, but they might allow it temporarily to protect a bunch of free agents from getting absolutely hosed.  Something like if the player agrees then the team can defer 25% of a players salary for a couple years spread out over 2-3 years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should quit paying these guys the outrageously stupid money and years that has been going on. That way they don't have to try and rape the public for $50 a seat in the nosebleed sections to cover payroll. If they want fans back they have to rethink just how much people, not corporations, can afford to pay to watch baseball in person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the FA market will get silly. I think @Jay is right that the teams with lower payrolls may benefit the most. But perhaps not.

Imagine Bauer getting 1 year, 18 million in late February. Is that likely? Absolutely not. But this is an unprecedented off-season so I expect plenty of fuckery.

I'm interested again. 

hold on GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Blarg said:

They should quit paying these guys the outrageously stupid money and years that has been going on. That way they don't have to try and rape the public for $50 a seat in the nosebleed sections to cover payroll. If they want fans back they have to rethink just how much people, not corporations, can afford to pay to watch baseball in person. 

3b70b87e9027857740671c02d6b6cfb4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dochalo said:

 

Will the mlbpa be agreeable to kicking the can down the road with deferrals and other cost saving maneuvers?  Would a player under a guaranteed contract agree to deferring some money with no interest or even taking a pay cut so that free agency can remain as stout as it's been?  That's gonna create some internal conflict among the players should that be suggested.   I am sure the free agent prices will get pushed down about but all existing player contracts, arb estimates, league min salaries, draft bonuses - essentially all of baseball's financial infrastructure has been modeled on existing revenue so it sorta falls apart if you lose 1/3rd of that.  Will TV deals get renegotiated? Will mlb kick more money to the teams from streaming and other media.  

But back to the halos, with 40m less in revenue to the mlb roster for 2021, what happens?  That's puts the team right at about where it currently stands from a payroll standpoint and as we know, the team needs help.  I think they'll split the difference and maybe add about 15-20m to what is already committed (or likely to be).  

I think we're gonna see some interesting and odd moves from quite a few teams this off season that or more financially driven than baseball team on the field driven.  

First, good post.

I think the TV deals being renegotiated is a certainty, at least in the long-term, being that the big providers (cable/sat) that carry the lucrative regional sports networks are trending down and the internet based providers are either not offering or providing limited availability to RSNs.  People are cutting the cord and either viewing for free or living without.  That big contract Arte signed with Fox is not going to generate as much money as they thought at the time.  The Angels under Arte have consistently directed inquiries about payroll away from the luxury tax threshold and stated that it is based on their revenue.  However true that has actually been I don't know, but I think it is very likely that they are not going to start looking to spend up to the Tax threshold now of all times and will keep payroll fairly static.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

They should quit paying these guys the outrageously stupid money and years that has been going on. That way they don't have to try and rape the public for $50 a seat in the nosebleed sections to cover payroll. If they want fans back they have to rethink just how much people, not corporations, can afford to pay to watch baseball in person. 

Single game ticket prices is a really bad way to view how interested mlb is in connecting with average, everyday fans.

Remember the old days when tickets are as cheap as $2.50?  That’s when all the games were not on TV.

Baseball figured out that if they put all the games on TV (mostly for free) that more average everyday people would become emotionally attached to their team, and then those fans would want to, at least a few times per year, splurge for a family outing at the ballpark.

If you triple the number of people emotionally interested in your team, you can still almost fill the ballpark with fans that go 3-5 times a year, rather than having to depend on fans going 15-20 times a year.

And, expanding your fanbase by putting all the games on TV boosts your tv ratings.

Personally I don’t have a calendar open enough to go to 25-35 games a year.

I very much prefer this contemporary business model where I can see as many games as I want on TV, and then just go to a handful of games as a special treat event.

You can complain that individual game tickets are “too expensive” for regular families now but the truth is they are only “too expensive” for regular families to go to 20 games a year.

Honestly, I think they have it right now.  I see more baseball now and going to the game is a more unique special treat that I don’t mind paying for at these prices because I am not doing it 20 times a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Blarg said:

They should quit paying these guys the outrageously stupid money and years that has been going on. That way they don't have to try and rape the public for $50 a seat in the nosebleed sections to cover payroll. If they want fans back they have to rethink just how much people, not corporations, can afford to pay to watch baseball in person. 

As much as I would like to see an MLB team here, in this respect I'm not bummed about having AAA. We have a new ballpark, and the tickets are affordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...