• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aznhockeyguy

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

806 profile views
  1. It's Mattison plus 3 more minor league pitchers according to mlbtraderumors.
  2. Very true, but my point still stands that TV money is a prime factor in team valuations for both sports. I think TV money will dry up for at least baseball, whether or not tech money (facebook, roku, twitter etc.) keeps it up remains to be seen as baseball is not a popular sport with younger viewers. My main point was to address the point that new stadiums are a driving force in team valuations, which I conceded for other teams, but since the Angels will be responsible for their own stadium, the Angels wouldn't necessarily get a bump if they build a new stadium. That valuation paragraph wasn't in the article as I was writing my initial post. If that's true then the Angels did get fair market value.
  3. Valid point, the city can put out bids for the land with the contingency that they pay for the removal and development of said site. The city can put the responsibility of taking down the stadium to the developer. Ukyah, Not necessarily, the Rams are getting a new stadium but many will point to their move to LA as the biggest reason for their valuation jump. Dallas/Jerry got a lot of public subsidies for said stadium, And the biggest push in franchise valuations is mostly correlated to the rise of TV money for broadcasting. Because the Angels/Arte will be responsible for the ballpark renovation/construction, I don't think the valuation will change too much. Take a look at the Texas Rangers example Since they were able to get a significant amount subsidized by Arlington, their team valuation increased due to the upcoming stadium. As I said in my original comment that it was highly unlikely, but I can see it happening. I guess you left that part out to fit your conclusion of my poor conclusion. See my previous two comments above. Because the team is directly responsible for the new stadium, the new valuation will reflect this situation. I don't think it'll be too much, just look at the Rams, very little public money for the new stadium, but the valuation of the team was mostly changed because of the move to LA. It will be interesting how Arte will finance this.
  4. She did a very good job of writing the article. Correct me if I'm wrong but here's what's going to happen and why it's happening. What does the City of Anaheim get? 1) 325 million upfront 2) No longer required to maintain and upkeep the stadium and surrounding parking lots as the city owned the stadium and surrounding land. 3) The city no longer have to do an annual 700k payment to a maintenance fund. 4) No more super favorable lease terms to Arte for said stadium. 5) Increased tax base/income as the surrounding area gets developed with more housing/commercial space. 6) A parking structure as said development will take up parking space. 7) A baseball team until at least 2050. 8+) Other ancillary benefits that is yet to be determined but so far has been: using local companies for the construction/remodel of the stadium, low income housing as the area gets developed, and additional parks. Why would Anaheim do this? Depends on your viewpoint. Anaheim was giving some money to Arte via super favorable lease terms while paying for upkeep and maintenance, all so that the city can have a baseball team. According to the article, the city has only made ~600k in 2 decades from the stadium and surrounding land, but this can be construed in accounting. Without knowing further details into what goes into that figure or how it was derived, I'm not really sure if that's good or bad (I'm an accountant). If you're a fan of not giving public subsidies to sports team owners like myself, you can definitely chalk it up to a win as this gets Anaheim out of the stadium leasing business, while also increasing the city's tax base as the site gets developed. However, the price they got for said land is about 33% of fair market value according to some estimates and to me it's one last subsidy to Arte to keep the team in Anaheim until 2050. But after that, Arte or whomever owns the team at the time can threaten to move again to get more subsidies from somewhere else. Also, I listed item number 8 as a benefit, however according to the article the low income housing and parks will have a dollar value that will be subtracted from the purchase price, meaning most likely the city will need pay back some of the money that they're getting right now after those items are built. What does the Angels/Arte get? 1) Ownership via a partnership of stadium and surrounding land: Expect more and more events outside of baseball to maximize revenue. 2) Via the partnership 153 acres of valuable Orange County land at ~33% of fair market value according to some estimates. 3) Stadium certainty until 2050. Why did Arte and the Angels do this? I can see why Arte would do this, he essentially used the Angels' leverage to get him and his partners valuable land for 33% of fair market value in some valuations. After the deal is signed, Arte can essentially said screw it and sell the team, saddling the new owners of the team with the obligations of the stadium remodel/build and staying here until 2050. Arte and his partners will get to keep the land and Arte will get to keep the proceeds of selling the team. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens, as baseball attendance and ratings are declining and the TV money might not be there anymore. For the Angels, I think it's a fair question whether or not this will affect the team's spending this offseason. Now that the Angels are responsible for the stadium remodel/construction, I wouldn't be surprised to see some belt tightening in terms of spending. Of course all of this is speculation, but based on the article these are some of the items I've concluded, but hopefully these will help you guys with what this deal means.
  5. Can the Angels resign him as a minor league FA?
  6. I don't have Twitter and did not know about that fact about Yamaguchi, carry on.
  7. Dim Sum is Chinese cuisine and not Japanese. You should've gone with a stereotype and said sushi.
  8. Interesting article. I'm not in favor of using tax dollars to pay for any stadiums. If Arte wants to move the team, good riddance.
  9. After everything, glad the Astros lost this year. Sounds like the Finance bros that was running the Astros just got caught and are going to get owned by MLB.