Minasian: No mandate from ownership to only sign one year deals

[mmc]

 

[jsnpritchett]

[angelsnationtalk]

but there is an internal cap soooooooo there's the answer

[jsnpritchett]

He'll sign Vince Velasquez to a 2-year deal for $4M just so this can technically be true.

[Dtwncbad]

We will see.  But there is at least a fair argument that the best new owner for the Angels will be a financial juggernaut, and therefore would not even blink in the transaction over the payroll going up substantially.

My guess is the new owner will be identified soon enough to have meaningful discussions with Moreno resulting in giving some guidelines to Minasian.

I don’t think the Angels are going to be paralyzed due to the change in ownership mostly because it is very unlikely the team will be going to a penny pinching miser interested in an immediate tear down.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, angelsnationtalk said:

but there is an internal cap soooooooo there's the answer

Every single team has an internal cap, soooooooo

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

We will see.  But there is at least a fair argument that the best new owner for the Angels will be a financial juggernaut, and therefore would not even blink in the transaction over the payroll going up substantially.

My guess is the new owner will be identified soon enough to have meaningful discussions with Moreno resulting in giving some guidelines to Minasian.

I don’t think the Angels are going to be paralyzed due to the change in ownership mostly because it is very unlikely the team will be going to a penny pinching miser interested in an immediate tear down.

Right.  I highly doubt the new owner is going to spend $2-3 Billion and then go into rebuild mode.  They’d be much more likely to spend even more.

[Docwaukee]

If I'm the new owner, there's no way I would want the seller making some sort of high dollar commitment where I wasn't one of the decision makers.  

Also, why would Arte want that right now?  The whole point of making a longer term commitment to a player is that you get them for more than one year.  It might not end up devaluing his asset by much, but it would devalue it some and let's say for a minute that the contract was actually a good one.  Arte is paying out of his own pocket for someone else's future success.  

Arte potentially has one year to get any benefit out of something he spends money on right now.   I would be shocked if he dumped any money into the team right now.  

[Jay]

8 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

If I'm the new owner, there's no way I would want the seller making some sort of high dollar commitment where I wasn't one of the decision makers.

Correct.

[Angelsfan1984]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Correct.

Doesn’t a better product typically fetch higher price tags? 

[Docwaukee]

21 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Doesn’t a better product typically fetch higher price tags? 

you don't know if it's a better product.  If I'm the new owner, I want to determine how to make the product better.  I don't want someone else spending my money.  

[Angelsfan1984]

1 hour ago, Docwaukee said:

you don't know if it's a better product.  If I'm the new owner, I want to determine how to make the product better.  I don't want someone else spending my money.  

When someone is going to spend 3 billion dollars, i dont think they are so short sighted to say that spending money to improve the overall product (which is likely already built into the purchase via the budget) is a negative. If it is, they can depreciate the value of the team and save on taxes. 

We're talking billionaires here, not millionaires. 

[Docwaukee]

55 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

When someone is going to spend 3 billion dollars, i dont think they are so short sighted to say that spending money to improve the overall product (which is likely already built into the purchase via the budget) is a negative. If it is, they can depreciate the value of the team and save on taxes. 

We're talking billionaires here, not millionaires. 

It's not some guy/gal with a pot of money.  These transactions are looked at down to the cent.  To assume that a couple mil here and there isn't important to the buyer or seller is absurd.  Entities doing these types of acquisitions want to maintain control of every aspect when they take over.  There are no allowances for what could happen or what might happen after the transaction is complete.  You throw out 'depreciate the value of the team' like Kramer talking about write offs.  Arte isn't going to spend money on something that isn't going to make him money at this point and the buyer isn't going to give him credit for something that might happen.  

People with 3 billion dollars pay attention to everything.  That's why they have 3 billion dollars.  

[Vegas Halo Fan]

13 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

Arte is paying out of his own pocket for someone else's future success.  

Arte potentially has one year to get any benefit out of something he spends money on right now.   I would be shocked if he dumped any money into the team right now.  

He would only be out whatever was due until the sale was completed. Having a better roster might also have a positive impact on the sale price.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Angelsfan1984]

5 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

It's not some guy/gal with a pot of money.  These transactions are looked at down to the cent.  To assume that a couple mil here and there isn't important to the buyer or seller is absurd.  Entities doing these types of acquisitions want to maintain control of every aspect when they take over.  There are no allowances for what could happen or what might happen after the transaction is complete.  You throw out 'depreciate the value of the team' like Kramer talking about write offs.  Arte isn't going to spend money on something that isn't going to make him money at this point and the buyer isn't going to give him credit for something that might happen.  

People with 3 billion dollars pay attention to everything.  That's why they have 3 billion dollars.  

You're skipping over the part where i reference the budget. Everyone knows budgets fluctuate and I'm sure any prospective buyers are aware of a fluctuating budget and are ok with keeping it within parameters. If they give a not to exceed number than i'm sure Arte is already well aware of that. If that number falls at about expiring +/- 10M, there are no issues. I'm also quite positive that an addendum can be added to any contract stipulating if any parameters haven't been met then xyz happens. When finalizing a multi-billion dollar contract these get worked around rather than becoming deal breakers.

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

You're skipping over the part where i reference the budget. Everyone knows budgets fluctuate and I'm sure any prospective buyers are aware of a fluctuating budget and are ok with keeping it within parameters. If they give a not to exceed number than i'm sure Arte is already well aware of that. If that number falls at about expiring +/- 10M, there are no issues. I'm also quite positive that an addendum can be added to any contract stipulating if any parameters haven't been met then xyz happens. When finalizing a multi-billion dollar contract these get worked around rather than becoming deal breakers.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker by any means.  It would get pre arranged.  I am actually saying that Arte has very little if any motivation to take on risk at this point.  Sure they could bake in some if/then sort of stuff.  My guess is that it would mostly be relative to attendance.  So they could probably throw some escalators in there but any future payroll obligations would come off of Arte's bottom line.  I just don't see either side wanting to make it that complicated.  

Point being that I don't see Arte committing large sums of money out in the future which is what this thread is supposedly about.  

[Dtwncbad]

Until a new owner is identified, the front office will conduct business as usual pursuing what they think will help the team.

The second the new owner is identified, the new ownership will have a clear say on what the front office can do.  My guess is it will be more aggressive than Arte, but we will see.

The idea that there will be paralysis until the deal closes does not match this transaction.  This is not the Royals or the Diamondbacks.

This is a premium franchise in a first tier market.  The person or entity wanting to acquire THIS team is going to not want to waste 2023.

I am betting on a new ownership group being identified soon and the front office getting a green light to make 2023 a huge turning point.

[Angelsfan1984]

14 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Until a new owner is identified, the front office will conduct business as usual pursuing what they think will help the team.

The second the new owner is identified, the new ownership will have a clear say on what the front office can do.  My guess is it will be more aggressive than Arte, but we will see.

The idea that there will be paralysis until the deal closes does not match this transaction.  This is not the Royals or the Diamondbacks.

This is a premium franchise in a first tier market.  The person or entity wanting to acquire THIS team is going to not want to waste 2023.

I am betting on a new ownership group being identified soon and the front office getting a green light to make 2023 a huge turning point.

I completely agree.  I also dont see a prospective buyer wanting to inherit a turd of a franchise. My guess is they are business as usual until the owner establishes a direction including a whole new front office. 

Minasian probably knows nothing because Arte isnt disclosing it. "sure keep the budget at X (like he's always done), since you'll get relieved after a year when the new ownership group takes over and establishes itself"

[Angelsfan1984]

20 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

It wouldn't be a deal breaker by any means.  It would get pre arranged.  I am actually saying that Arte has very little if any motivation to take on risk at this point.  Sure they could bake in some if/then sort of stuff.  My guess is that it would mostly be relative to attendance.  So they could probably throw some escalators in there but any future payroll obligations would come off of Arte's bottom line.  I just don't see either side wanting to make it that complicated.  

Point being that I don't see Arte committing large sums of money out in the future which is what this thread is supposedly about.  

I agree. i dont see him signing a correa type to an 8-year deal. However, I can see them extending Ohtani and having that be a selling point to the franchise. In order to accomplish that goal, you have to put a competitive team on the field. I envision some 2-4 year deals of significance. 

[jsnpritchett]

15 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

I agree. i dont see him signing a correa type to an 8-year deal. However, I can see them extending Ohtani and having that be a selling point to the franchise. In order to accomplish that goal, you have to put a competitive team on the field. I envision some 2-4 year deals of significance. 

Anyone who continues to hold on to this kind of hope is setting themselves up for disappointment.

[Angels 1961]

17 hours ago, Stradling said:

Right.  I highly doubt the new owner is going to spend $2-3 Billion and then go into rebuild mode.  They’d be much more likely to spend even more.

The Angels have spent money. That is not the answer. 

[Jay]

Angels signed Ohtani to a $30 million one-year deal to keep him on the roster.
Angels signed Phil Nevin to a one-year deal.

 

[Angelsjunky]

On 11/7/2022 at 8:56 PM, angelsnationtalk said:

but there is an internal cap soooooooo there's the answer

There's always been an internal cap, so I'm not sure what "answer" you're talking about.

[Fake Chow]

19 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

This is a premium franchise in a first tier market.

Just curious, what makes you think the Angels are considered a premium franchise?  I'm pretty confident in saying that outside of Orange County very few think this way.

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, Fake Chow said:

Just curious, what makes you think the Angels are considered a premium franchise?  I'm pretty confident in saying that outside of Orange County very few think this way.

They're premium in the sense that there is a Del Taco across the street from the stadium.