cals

If you really want to discuss the status of crime or whatever in SF or Oakland or wherever - please take it to the Politics Board.
You really need to stop bringing politics into the baseball forum.  You do this way too often.

I have the capacity.

I’d probably take a dump on it on tik tok.

Hopefully soon they'll consider recriminalizing shoplifting.

I seriously doubt two lesbos are going to eat jizz.

Cholos and Sam Blum.  What a combo.

It’s not a first name you twit.  It’s the same as all the kids named Jackson or Parker.  At the end of the 80’s new parents all became douchebags.

Cholos and Sam Blum.  What a combo.

I’d probably take a dump on it on tik tok.

With all the hype around him I'd put it on the market immediately. The dude could rip his shoulder to shreds tomorrow and then you're stuck with a piece of cowhide that nobody cares about.

My first thread was a bit silly and tongue-in-cheek fun, so I'll try to contribute something a bit useful or different to the community for my second thread.  It's a bit long but hopefully, it's worth your time to consider.

Before I mention Arte, I need to give some context:

One of the engineers at a previous job taught me about a "Ben Franklin chart," or so he called it.  He explained that Ben Franklin would use this weighted scale chart to determine which option was the best out of several possible options.
He would create a column for each option (ex: determining whether to live in city A or city B). 
Then on a new row under that, he would list all of the factors that would determine which decision he would make.

First, he would rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how important each factor was to him. 
Next, he would rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how well that factor applied to each option. 
So first, you're giving the factor some weight (or not), and next, you're seeing how well it applies to what you're thinking about doing. 
So in my example, if commute time was important to you and city A is 10 minutes from work while city B is an hour from work, you might rate city A as a 9 and city B as a 3 when it comes to commuting.  If you rated the importance of a short commute time as an 8, you multiply 8 x 9 for city A, and 8 x 3 for city B.  Then store "72" in a new column next to A, and "24" in a new column for city B's results.

Then go to the next factor and do the same thing.  Then when you're done, after you've multiplied and gotten the number for each factor like in the example above, you add the totals up and see which option has the higher score.  The option with the highest score almost always ends up being the correct decision because you quite literally weighed your options, as they say.

So:  Should Arte sell, or should he stay?  If you already think you have the answer, you can't quantify it yet without first doing the math.  The reason is that although you could be completely correct in one regard about how Arte is a bad owner in this way or that way, there's more to it than that.  Until you have given the factor a value, it's harder to compare its overall importance to, say, beer prices, salary size, or a minor-league systemic improvement.

How important is salary size to you?  If having a large amount of money to put towards players is important to you, you might rate that an 8.  Then looking at Arte, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does Arte fit this bill?  Probably an 8, having the 6th richest MLB team in the league (in terms of monetary value).  So for this example, Arte would score a 64.
What would a new owner score here?  What if the new owner was cheap, like the A's owner?  What if he wasn't?  How about the risk of a new bad owner being a factor?  Add it to the list.

How important are beer or food prices?  Give it a value.

How about parking? 

You're likely going to add minor-league development as a factor that is very important to you.......or is it?  Maybe you feel that signing draft picks like Schanuel is good enough with all of the other young talent that the Angels acquired but didn't develop themselves (see O'Hoppe and Moniak).

The elephant in the room is that we can't give a score to a new owner who doesn't yet exist.  Even so, you could give a blanket score to a new owner as a sort of threshold, and if Arte doesn't meet that threshold, well at least you now have a mathematical way to show your work.  

We don't have future owners or a crystal ball, but we do have past owners to go by.  

Looking at when Disney owned the club, was salary up there?  So if team salary is important to you, and you were to score between 1-10 on how Disney applied to salary, they'd get a lower score and Arte would get a higher score.  But that's just one factor.

Looking at food prices, if you looked at Disney vs Arte, Arte once again might come out on top since he lowered costs at the ballpark as soon as he acquired the team.  I haven't lived in CA for many years now and maybe food costs are high again, so I'm going off of the data that I have.

This post is getting too long so I'll stop now.  Just take each factor into account, give it a value, figure out how much Arte applies to that factor vs a new owner, and see where things stand.  Then if you want Arte to sell the team, you can say that you have a little more certainty in your decision, rather than going off pure impulse.  Also, this Ben Franklin chart is great for all areas of your life when you're trying to figure out what to do and can't decide.

Thanks for your time, and go Angels!

 

I seriously doubt two lesbos are going to eat jizz.

It’s not a first name you twit.  It’s the same as all the kids named Jackson or Parker.  At the end of the 80’s new parents all became douchebags.

That you all have girl names?

Cholos and Sam Blum.  What a combo.

I seriously doubt two lesbos are going to eat jizz.

I’d probably take a dump on it on tik tok.

This whole situation is weird. 
 

I got home from fishing kind of late on Easter.  I wanted Indian tandoor chicken but nothing was open.  So I ordered what was available, Yemeni chicken.  It was OK. 

It sucks to be brown