Winter Meeting Day Two Recap
by Tom Dakers on Dec 7, 2011 1:17 AM EST
in Toronto Blue Jays News
Email
PrintToday was much more interesting than yesterday, at least for us Jays fans. You all know we picked up closer Sergio Santos, opinions on it are all over the site today. The poll on the trade has 1027 votes with 85% thinking it was a good trade. I like the trade too.
Also of note for the Jays, the Mets signed Jon Rauch to a 1-year, $3.5 million contract and Frank Francisco to a 2-year, $12 million contract. As each are Type-B free agents, we picked up a couple of draft picks tonight. I'm not going to miss Rauch. Frankie? Well, after a lousy start to the season, likely having something to do with an injury that cost him some of spring training and the first couple of weeks of the season, he was pretty good, but I'll gladly take the draft pick for him. The Mets also picked up Ramon Ramirez and traded Angel Pagan to the Giants for Andres Torrez.
Albert Pujols has at least one 10-year $200 million (plus?) contract offer. We know the Marlins offered him that. The Cardinals and the Angels are also, apparently, in on him. Can you imagine offering a 32 year old player a 10-year contract? What are the odds that Albert will still be worth $20 million a year at age 40?
How would you like to be a taxpayer in Miami, paying for a ballpark for the Marlins, who didn't have the funds to pay for it, then they give Jose Reyes $106 million, Heath Bell $27 million and offer Pujols $200 +. Good thing Loria gave all the local politicians families jobs in exchange for their votes, including that blind relative who designed the new team logo and jersey for them.
Prince Fielder is still looking for someone that will offer him more than 5 or 6 seasons. I have to believe that one of the teams that misses out on Albert will look at Prince as a backup plan.
What else happened? Well, someone won the posting for Hiroyuki Makajima. All we know is it wasn't the Red Sox. David Ortiz accepted arbitration with the Red Sox. And Hanley Ramirez told the Marlins he didn't want to play third base or any other position than short. You would have thought the Marlins would have talked to Hanley before signing Reyes.
I'm sure there was other stuff that went on today, but it is late and I want to sleep. You can add what I missed in the thread.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not Jays related
Apparently the Phillies are backing off of Aramis Ramirez and not shopping Polanco anymore, as per Rosenthal.
Here's my attempt at a witty sig. Didn't really go so well, methinks.
Wise men wonder, while strong men die.
Nice gangsta spelling on Torres, btw.
Here's my attempt at a witty sig. Didn't really go so well, methinks.
Wise men wonder, while strong men die.
My thoughts digested:
Love the backdrop! Everyone else at the meetings used the standard MLB backdrop but the Jays brought out their own. Great marketing idea.
Great to hear about the trade for Santos. It cost a lot in Molina, but in terms of money savings Santos’ contract can’t be beat. I’ll take Molina + $8.25 million over 3 years and 3 more years of control for Santos + sandwich over $12 million over 2 years for Francisco any day. Too bad that all this happened the day where I was superbusy in the office.
Nice to see our 1-2 punch out of the bullpen last year land in the Big Apple. Thanks for a drama-filled year and allowing the Jays to celebrate quite a few come-from-behind victories.
If Rogers doesn’t offer Pujols $225 million over 11 years, then they obviously don’t care about the team.
How many schools and shelters would Miami have to close to fund the Marlins?
And meh to the other stuff.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
Moar draft picks!
Who seriously thought Rausch would still net us one? Maybe we should’ve offered arb on Camp, too
I actually thought he would
Teams go nuts for relievers in the off-season, even ones like Rauch. I don’t think he’s a bad pickup for the Mets either since they play in a bigger ballpark. More of his flyballs should stay in the yard.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
apparently the Mets are moving the fences in this year at Citi
not sure exactly how that will affect the park factors, but it should increase home runs over last year
Isn't JP Riccardi involved with the Mets?
Makes more sense if he is!! haha
Not sure if anyone listened to the AA interviews yesterday..
But there were 3 different time he spoke to different people, and I heard all of them. I think he must have said the words ‘payroll parameters’ about 100 times. He mentioned how the payroll is extremely high already relative to attendance, and how attendance needs to go up before payroll can, they spend so much on draft picks and international FA’s, blah blah blah. Kind of disheartening as a Jays fan to hear. I get what he is saying, but it pretty much means any chance of a big FA or big money player being acquired in a trade is slim to none.
As someone else pointed out, saying you have a ton of money available to spend is not a very good bargaining tactic
While it’s my hope that it’s a mere bargaining tactic, I cant believe any front office to buy into “Rogers are short on money” claim
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
Rogers is a business with a fiduciary obligation to make profits for shareholders, not a baseball charity. They are not going to use profits from other business segments to give the baseball team more cash so the fans can have a winning club – they can’t, their shareholders would sue them.
by MjwW on Dec 7, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Addendum
What I mean is, adding Blue Jays payroll has to be an independent business case. I personally think it can make sense, though not necessarily right now. But they can;t take profits from the other 97-98% of their business to put into the Jays
These profits they take
to sign someone like Fielder amounts to a rounding error in their overall profit. Its not like the contracts they provide will take even 1/4 of 1% out of their total revenue. If they want to act like Inter-brew then that’s fine but do not tell the fans that they are willing to spend money and then say well we are willing to spend but only when people start coming out to watch us.
Rogers
Has actually been able to make a lot more money off of the Jays than previous ownership because of the synergies of owning a pro sports team (particularly a pro baseball team) and owning their own network (Rogers Sportsnet.) Basically they were able to launch both Sportsnet One and their internet TV (No idea what it’s called, but Rogers subscribers can watch Jays game online), off the strength of the Jays.
If you look at Rogers, they are split into three divisions (Wireless, Cable, and Media) with the Blue Jays falling under Media. Media’s revenue of $1.5 billion in 2010 earns Rogers only a fraction of its $12.2 billion total revenue (12.2%), and makes up even less of its total operating profit (3.2%). So margins are actually very slim on the media side. If you dig further you see that the Blue Jays and Rogers Centre accounts for only 12% of the revenue of Media, so $180 million. You can now see that the Jays are small potatoes like you said they were. So why would the Jays add significant payroll if they can’t be relatively certain of a ROI (Return on Investment)? Unlike what you believe, Rogers actually is held accountable by its shareholders. They have to put out annual reports every year. If the Jays were losing them money overall, they would have to sell (and be better served to sell to reinvest that money in their more profitable ventures.)
So in summary. They are saying that they will grow the payroll with revenues. Like a business (hey that makes sense!). Good thing for us is that Rogers has the potential to earn more off less because of its other offerings. :)
.313/.400/.565
by T.Haynes on Dec 7, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I can't disagree more
Rogers are a SERVICE PROVIDER. based on your argument they should cut on their customer services in order to please their shareholders. Being Cheap on your baseball team is exactly the same – you’re providing a third-grade product to your customers in order to cut costs and please your shreholders.
First, for your benefit, it is a BAD business decision.
Second, for those who see a sports team as a different kind of business, that amounts to molesting the fans’ loyalty (emotional, and whiny, but some may see it that way)
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
by HESS2479 on Dec 7, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You entirely missed the point
adding Blue Jays payroll has to be an independent business case. I personally think it can make sense, though not necessarily right now
I think it can be a good business decision. The point is, adding costs has to be justified by bringing in more revenue. If Rogers cut their customer service, they will lose some customers and revenue – the question is, if you spend $1M less in customer service, how much service revenue (net of cost to provide it) do you lose – if it’s less than $1M, then this is the right business decision. Likewise, if you add customer service, do you get the cost back? If not, you don’t do it.
You may not like this type of analysis as a customer, but it’s the way things happen in the real world – businesses are not charities who make decisions belevolently. Costs have to be in line with revenues, you don’t add a cost unless it bring in more revenue above the cost (ie, adds profit)
Second, for those who see a sports team as a different kind of business, that amounts to molesting the fans’ loyalty (emotional, and whiny, but some may see it that way)
I think your choice of molesting is too strong, but the reality is, MLB long ago ceased being “a different kind of business” – it’s a business, plain and simple. Millionaires and billionaires fighting for their piece of the pie. I’ve made peace with it, and that’s why I long ago stopped attaching myself to individual players – they’re essentially mercenaries. I was a kid when Shawn Green left because the Jays couldn’t afford to keep him, and I hated it. Likewise, owners want to make a buck – now the good news is, they make more when the team is good. So you should want good, smart business decisions, because they will result in better on field performance in the long-run. Or you can rail against the system, which is your right, but it’s tilting at windmills.
by MjwW on Dec 7, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
The AL East Eternal Catch 22
Attendance needs to go up for the Jays to spend money. The Jays are never good enough to garner a large attendance, because the other teams in the AL East spend money like crazy.
How can the Blue Jays not spend money, continue fielding teams that will, at the end of the season, be fourth place in the AL East, and expect attendance to go up?
by eight_legged_freaks on Dec 7, 2011 10:00 AM EST up reply actions
If the Jays are not good enough, it’s not just because of the NY/Boston payroll. That payroll has nothing to do with losing a series to the Astros.
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
by HESS2479 on Dec 7, 2011 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
THAT is the most disturbing thing I "heard" AA say since he was hired
“heard” because I’m yet to hear the actual reel. I just heard Blair talking about it.
If that’s true (and I take Blair’s word with a SACK of salt), and Rogers (the richest owners in pro-sports) are being misers, then it is VERY disturbing.
I’m all for fiscal responsibility. However, I strongly oppose the “first you come to the ball park, then we’ll spend more” theme. Shifting blame is very lame.
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
Another point
As one that DOES go to games, I sure have the right to feel that the Jays are (allegedly) being cheap on me, the “Loyal Fan”, because of those that DOES NOT go to games.That’s (allegedly) disgusting
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
Lots of people were quick to criticize Richard Griffin about his column on the Santos deal for raising a red flag on AA’s new spin on cost controls. Seems Griffin was on to something, as lots of writers picking up on the theme. Here’s Shi Davidi’s take on AA’s “odd” new talking points.
"The richest owners in pro sports"
Rogers is not rich. Rogers is a corporation, owned by its shareholders. They own the “wealth” of the company, and want to make money – in fact, they entrust management with their equity to do so – not to win a World Series. Now it turns out, winning a World Series would be very good for profits, but you can’t just throw money around without a business case. It’s not a matter of being a miser, it’s a matter of making smart decisions. Giving $220 million to a 31 year old baseball player, or 150M+ to Prince, or $100M to CJ Wilson, etc, etc , etc is not very smart, because we know on average those contracts don;t work out – a few do, the majority don’t. It’s the curse of winning an auction.
by MjwW on Dec 7, 2011 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I always found auctions funny
when they say “congratulations” (that’s what the email from eBay says anyway) – well done! you’ve earned the right to give up money in exchange for a product or service!
If you read the fine print on the rogers bill you might just find the same words
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
I’d take it that I was not clear enough.
I was never an advocate of careless spending, nor one of the “It’s not my money, so who cares” camp.
My point here is that if Attendance became a precondition to spending, I find it a bad business decision.
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
Well, I think that the pratical reality is that increased attendance will be a precondition to really increasing the payroll, but that said your point is well-taken. There is an argument to made that they should take a risk, increase payroll, and gamble on the results coming along.
That said, they’ve already built a solid core and an excellent system that should result in a better team and increased attendance (and we’ve already seen more attendance and better TV ratings, which means revenue is rising). So I think we’re in a virtuous cycle – higher revenues allow more spending, which means a better team, which results in more revenues, etc etc etc
...the chicken or the egg? What comes first?
Agree with you Beleaf. In my opinion, attendance will increase given the following 2 scenarios:
1) The team wins (regardless of personnel); fans will eventually come much later in the season when they finally believe the hype.
2) Big names are added to roster; fans will come from the start of the season.
Trade Lind and prospects for Gio Gonzales, bid for Darvish, and get Bautista some protection by adding a legitimate bat (Fielder) and see how many butts you put on the stands AA.
by Marcos Montenegro on Dec 7, 2011 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly!
Go to the FAN590 and listen to his 30 minute interview from the Winter Meetings – I love the guy, but even I was slightly turned off by what he was saying. Every answer had the word payroll parameters in it. In AA I trust, but I hope it was some sort of tactic.
Or make the same mistake Riccarid made
Which was to add free agents without a strong enough internally built core, in which case you end up spending a bunch more money without the playoffs to show for it. And that was before Tampa was good and it was just 2 teams on top of the AL East.
Once AA has a core in place he thinks can win, he’ll add some free agents to help push the team over the top. But short of pulling what the Marlins are doing, which could be very detrimental long term (remember, the history there is build it up, try for a 2 year window, and tear it right down and be pathetic), I don’t think AA thinks the team is there yet (frankly, neither do I)
by MjwW on Dec 7, 2011 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I do agree with this
But I think a Prince Fielder fits the blueprint as a piece of the core, plus signing him to 5 years means his and Bautista’s contract end at the same time, therefore maximizing the returns on both their prime years. I know the time is not NOW, but it has to be within 5 years, with both these guys still under contract. According to your logic, we should trade Bautista now then as well. Fielder is not ‘some’ FA, he is a franchise player, who don’t become available in their prime very often.
there are strong arguments to be made
in favour of trading Bautista. that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the best thing to do, but it’s not ludicrous either
Well...
Who knows, AA might agree with you! But I know he would really have to stick his neck out to ownership on Fielder. If he messes that up, it’s his job he’d pay for it with… I understand it from his point of view to stay the course and just keep building, increasing revenue gradually as he goes.
.313/.400/.565
more "bad news": Tom Cheek is NOT the winner of the Ford Frick award
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
Baseball awrds sucks
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
by HESS2479 on Dec 7, 2011 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't care about awards in the least.
but I really, really hope he wins soon so I don’t ever have to hear about the Ford Frick award again, it’s getting old every year.
by ABsteve on Dec 7, 2011 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
amen to that
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking." (J.M Keynes)
The Ford Frick committee sucks.
Tim McCarver? I’d rather vote for Deion Sanders to get in the HoF for dumping a bucket of Gatorade on him out of spite.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Dec 7, 2011 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Anyone hear who won the posting?
on that Japanese player?
Re: Pujols
I think 10 years/200M is a fair deal for Pujols. We are talking about one of the greatest hitters maybe ever.
Say he returns to the 6.5WAR range next year (keeping in mind, last year was only one of two years in his career that he was under that mark), apply a .5WAR aging decrease and $5M/WAR and he’s more than worth $200M. He should generate enough surplus value within the first 5 years of the contract that the second half is a wash. Front load the contract and it is more or less in line with what he should be getting.
If you think that last seasons 5WAR season is more in line with his true talent level, then it’s not worth it…but how many people think that?
But that isn't how you evaluate contracts
The fact that a player will underperform his contract towards the end is all but a given. The assumption the signing team takes is that he will outperform it over the earlier portion, and that they end up with a net gain in terms of value.
Players do not, and are not expected, to perform up to their salary in every single season of a long-term deal.
The other consideration
Is the 0.5 aging factor. Pujols will be 32 next year, and that’s a pretty generic factor. I would be tempted to use something more like 0.7, but I’m pretty conservative by nature.
Also, the inflation rate that gets used for the $/WAR makes the analysis pretty sensitive – really, depending on the asumptions (aging and inflation) you could probably get anywhere from $175MM to $250MM as a fair value.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
