OC Register: Angels GM Perry Minasian says comments from Shohei Ohtani, Mike Trout are to be expected

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The Angels failures over that period are really pretty simple…

3 things happened at once around 2015…

1. Mike Trout went from good to generational.

2. The farm system went from mediocre to abysmal.

3. Pujols and Hamilton’s contracts became giant busts.

You can’t fix 2 because of 1. And you can’t improve the MLB roster with trades because of 2 and you can’t do it in free agency because of 3.

(edit: “can’t” = “is much more difficult to do.”)

This is my take, and most people gloss over it.

Subtract Trout, and your able to punt the essentially 15-18/19, because you arent winning, and you arent ever getting the bad money back. You fire sale what you can, tank (no offense @Tank), and rebuild from scratch.

But Trout 

Everyone talks about how this team has wasted him, and its true. But the other option was to not even try at all during his prime.

 

[Docwaukee]

5 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The Angels failures over that period are really pretty simple…

3 things happened at once around 2015…

1. Mike Trout went from good to generational.

2. The farm system went from mediocre to abysmal.

3. Pujols and Hamilton’s contracts became giant busts.

You can’t fix 2 because of 1. And you can’t improve the MLB roster with trades because of 2 and you can’t do it in free agency because of 3.

(edit: “can’t” = “is much more difficult to do.”)

The commitment to the farm system ie scouting and player development has gone to hell from the day Arte bought the team.  Whatever helped the big club from 2003 to about 2009 was infrastructure from a previous regime.  Maybe some of that was Arte taking a stance on the mistreatment of foreign players but still.  There was almost nothing that came from the minors after 2004 with the exception of one draft (2009) and even that was almost all Trout even though they had 5 of the top 80 picks.   And the year following they had 5 picks in the top 40 and failed miserably.  

They committed to Pujols and Hamilton in 2012 and 2013.  While those contract became busts, the 'keep the major league club competitive' was well in place before 2015 yet they would cart out guys like Anthony Ortega, Matt Joyce, Johnny Giavotella, Ricky Nolasco etc.  So, as an example, why trade for a guy like Simmons and then limit your resources to where you put Ben Revere in LF or Jhoulys Chacin in the rotation?  You know damn well at that point that your farm wasn't going to help you.  Why bother with Zac Cozart and Cameron Maybin and Danny Espinosa. 

My point is that they've been taking the route of trying to potentially scrap out 87 wins for almost 15 years with the hope that their rabbit's foot, and duct tape and dip spit would result in a wild card bid.  maybe.  It's been a decade and a half of doing stuff the wrong way.  Maybe longer. 

What we're seeing now and over the last 6 years isn't a consequence of what happened 6 years ago but well before that.  The foundation for any major league team tracks back to what they did 5 and even 10 years prior for the most part and it's rare if it doesn't.  Relying on year to year impact is an absolute fools errand in this game.   

[Docwaukee]

10 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

This is my take, and most people gloss over it.

Subtract Trout, and your able to punt the essentially 15-18/19, because you arent winning, and you arent ever getting the bad money back. You fire sale what you can, tank (no offense @Tank), and rebuild from scratch.

But Trout 

Everyone talks about how this team has wasted him, and its true. But the other option was to not even try at all during his prime.

 

Trout was a gift but they were already making bad decisions well prior to knowing what Trout would become.  

[Stradling]

49 minutes ago, IheartLA said:

Oh how history repeats.

3 things also happened around 2021.

1. Shohei Ohtani went from good to MVP level.

2. The farm system went from abysmal to average.

3. Rendon and Upton’s contracts became giant busts.

Probably a little premature to call Rendon’s contract a bust. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

Trout was a gift but they were already making bad decisions well prior to knowing what Trout would become.  

You cant say they didnt try to bulk up the minors. I mean, what about baldoquin?

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

You cant say they didnt try to bulk up the minors. I mean, what about baldoquin?

I get the levity, but the minor league system, until recently and because of Eppler was absolute scorched earth. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

40 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

You cant say they didnt try to bulk up the minors. I mean, what about baldoquin?

Baldoquin was just another big splash

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Regarding your point that "you can't fix 2 because of 1," I don't think that is really the case, unless you think that a high first round draft pick or two fixes the farm, or that trading Trout alone would have replenished the farm.

What I mean is that the slow way to rebuild a farm system is to do it through the draft. Thats what Eppler was trying. But to do that you really can’t miss on any high draft picks because you don’t get enough of them. 
 

The fast way to rebuild a farm system is to trade a bunch of major leaguers for prospects who you’ve already seen play in the minors (as opposed to amateurs you draft). 
 

But the Angels couldn’t do that. Even if they traded everyone but Trout, they’d have been really tanking around Trout and ensuring he’d be gone at the end of his contract. 

[Docwaukee]

31 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

What I mean is that the slow way to rebuild a farm system is to do it through the draft. Thats what Eppler was trying. But to do that you really can’t miss on any high draft picks because you don’t get enough of them. 
 

The fast way to rebuild a farm system is to trade a bunch of major leaguers for prospects who you’ve already seen play in the minors (as opposed to amateurs you draft). 
 

But the Angels couldn’t do that. Even if they traded everyone but Trout, they’d have been really tanking around Trout and ensuring he’d be gone at the end of his contract. 

so they tricked Trout into staying?  

There are others ways to do it.  Like increasing payroll.  Not absurdly, but enough to acquire tradeable assets in the event that your half-assed major league roster does pretty much what's expected.  Something Minasian actually did this last off season to some degree yet he didn't trade them when he could have.   The dogs did it right yet they chose an even more aggressive version.   Their payroll was absurd.  Something the Angels could never compete with but so many of their transactions were to acquire farm talent even if it meant taking on money.  

And to me, and this is just me probably being arrogant, but there is no slow way or fast way.  There's a right way and a wrong way.   Or as I like to call it the smart way vs. the dumb way.  Because you're never going to acquire enough draft assets to rebuild an entire team in the period it would take before they become free agents or very expensive.  Unless of course you trade them which the wouldn't. 

Unless you have 15 years.  That's the slow way.  Something we see with small market teams. 

And it's also different if nothing else is going out the door.  Organizational assets are assets even if they don't become major leaguers.  So trading four pitchers for Dylan Bundy because of some BS directive to make the major league team competitive hurts.    And for what?  They did that because the couldn't 'afford' someone of Bundy's 'talent' on the FA market so they had to give up assets to keep payroll at a certain level.  

You're never or rarely going to win in baseball if all your assets are dedicated to one level.  Or one aspect of the org.   Especially if that's the major league team.  

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think I am - but you want to go the path of the Angels and try to piece together a team because of Trout?  Great.  But they haven't just done so at the expense of the what existed in the farm but the Angels also did so at the expense of what the farm could become.    They could have been making good choices and spending money on scouting and player development while still sort of jacking up the major league club.   But the Angels chose to let their budget impact both.  And for who?  Cameron Maybin?  Danny Espinosa? Julio Teheran? Ricky Nolasco? or David Freese.  Or Chris Iannetta. Or Matt Joyce.  The list of waste goes on and on.  And for what?  The potential of 88 wins that's turned into 78 over the last 6 years.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

7 hours ago, Dochalo said:

so they tricked Trout into staying?  

There are others ways to do it.  Like increasing payroll.  Not absurdly, but enough to acquire tradeable assets in the event that your half-assed major league roster does pretty much what's expected.  Something Minasian actually did this last off season to some degree yet he didn't trade them when he could have.   The dogs did it right yet they chose an even more aggressive version.   Their payroll was absurd.  Something the Angels could never compete with but so many of their transactions were to acquire farm talent even if it meant taking on money.  

And to me, and this is just me probably being arrogant, but there is no slow way or fast way.  There's a right way and a wrong way.   Or as I like to call it the smart way vs. the dumb way.  Because you're never going to acquire enough draft assets to rebuild an entire team in the period it would take before they become free agents or very expensive.  Unless of course you trade them which the wouldn't. 

Unless you have 15 years.  That's the slow way.  Something we see with small market teams. 

And it's also different if nothing else is going out the door.  Organizational assets are assets even if they don't become major leaguers.  So trading four pitchers for Dylan Bundy because of some BS directive to make the major league team competitive hurts.    And for what?  They did that because the couldn't 'afford' someone of Bundy's 'talent' on the FA market so they had to give up assets to keep payroll at a certain level.  

You're never or rarely going to win in baseball if all your assets are dedicated to one level.  Or one aspect of the org.   Especially if that's the major league team.  

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think I am - but you want to go the path of the Angels and try to piece together a team because of Trout?  Great.  But they haven't just done so at the expense of the what existed in the farm but the Angels also did so at the expense of what the farm could become.    They could have been making good choices and spending money on scouting and player development while still sort of jacking up the major league club.   But the Angels chose to let their budget impact both.  And for who?  Cameron Maybin?  Danny Espinosa? Julio Teheran? Ricky Nolasco? or David Freese.  Or Chris Iannetta. Or Matt Joyce.  The list of waste goes on and on.  And for what?  The potential of 88 wins that's turned into 78 over the last 6 years.  

Obviously if you have no budget the whole thing changes. But all teams have budgets. You can argue the Angels should be higher. I have no idea if it should or shouldn’t because I don’t know their revenue.

I recall @Dtwncbadand I used to have this debate when he would make the case that the Angels should spend more. As long as you are clear that you’re saying “the Angels should spend more because I want them to spend more” then have at it. 
 

I just think it’s impossible to make any kind of objective judgment of their spending limit without knowing their revenue. 

[Angel Oracle]

But sometimes, mainly when you are not far off, an owner has to understand that to make money, you have to spend a little of your own (outside revenues).

Post-season play = increased revenues.

[tdawg87]

The payroll is one thing. We can see the total payroll. Anyone can.

What's he spending on the minor leagues? The scouting department? Development?

We don't see those figures but given what we do know it would seem he's comfortable "showing off" with the high payroll while being cheap everywhere else. But that's based on emotions. 

I don't know if Arte really cares about winning or not. Honestly, neither answer would comfort me right now.

[Dtwncbad]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Obviously if you have no budget the whole thing changes. But all teams have budgets. You can argue the Angels should be higher. I have no idea if it should or shouldn’t because I don’t know their revenue.

I recall @Dtwncbadand I used to have this debate when he would make the case that the Angels should spend more. As long as you are clear that you’re saying “the Angels should spend more because I want them to spend more” then have at it. 
 

I just think it’s impossible to make any kind of objective judgment of their spending limit without knowing their revenue. 

I have had many conversations about spending and I am not sure which ones you are referencing.  But many times I have argued that it is fair for fans to notice equity in the business rather than being only focused on cash flow.

Artw can obviously choose to make every spending decision on year over year revenue versus expenses.  That is up to him.

But it is not unfair to bring up the fact that the team has little or no debt and is worth probably over $2b.

There are fairly simple ways to use some of that equity to improve your team now.

If you had a house worth $2b and owed nothing on it and you needed new flooring you would use some of the home’s equity.  The money is not lost if you put it back into the house to improve the house.

That is a very simple analogy but I am just making the point that equity is there.

In the big picture for a business like this, year over year cash flow is arguably less important than building the franchise, and sometimes you use equity to build things.

Arte just chooses not to.  He absolutely “can” spend more to put this team to try to add the pieces that the team seems to need.

He doesn’t and that’s up to him.  But let’s not be dumb that he doesn’t have a pile of equity in his lap at his disposal. 

[WicketMaiden]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I just think it’s impossible to make any kind of objective judgment of their spending limit without knowing their revenue. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196663/revenue-of-the-los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim-since-2006/ link to the Angels' revenues. 

Average revenue for the four years 2016 - 2019 was around $350m per year, $141m in last year's abridged season.

I know from previous research (Deloitte I think) that European Soccer clubs with payrolls above 55% of revenue are usually loss-making entities. These days most of top clubs that aren't in financial trouble have a sports payroll around 50% of total revenue. As an example, Manchester United's transfer outlay this summer was a net of around £100m ($133), which added to the annual wage bill for the senior squad of £226m ($300m) works out pretty much bang on 50% of their expected revenues of around £650m ($865m). (Thanks to https://www.spotrac.com)

Assuming this model applies to a baseball franchise, with the Angels recent payrolls and revenues coming out at an average around 50% of total revenue, it would appear at least that the Angels are acting with fiscal responsibility overall. If only they spent it better.

tl:dr - $170m - $185m on the senior squad is about right for a $350m revenue franchise like the Angels.