Stupid Tigers Trade Porcello for Cespedes + trade Suarez for Simple Simon from reds

[stonecold2136]

Sorry but this is the dumbest argument when it comes to baseball. There is such thing as a budget every team has. There are owners that are worth less than illitch and spend more.

Then there are owners of teams like the Braves and A's who are two of the richest in baseball and wont break 100 million

If Scherzer is signed the Tigers could go way past the so called budget.

At this point in his life I could see Mr I paying a luxery tax to win a championship.

 

[Mitchrapp]

If Scherzer is signed the Tigers could go way past the so called budget.

At this point in his life I could see Mr I paying a luxery tax to win a championship.

He wasn't stating anything related to the luxury tax. He was saying every owner has their own budget. We don't know what MI is. Maybe it's past the tax, maybe not.

 

[Thumb]

If Scherzer is signed the Tigers could go way past the so called budget.

At this point in his life I could see Mr I paying a luxery tax to win a championship.

Illitch does not have 8 years left in him by the looks of things, that's what Max's contract would doom us for. And I seriously doubt he makes all decisions on Red Wing and Tiger spending without consulting his sons as well.

I could see going over the luxury tax threshold for a single season or two in order to take a last shot at winning a championship, but Illitch didn't become rich by poor financial decisions, no matter how bad he wants a ring.

 

[stonecold2136]

Illitch is not looking so good in public these days.

He is starting to remind me of the old Angels owner Gene Autry

Wanted to bring a championship to the Angels so bad but health conditions and old age caught up to the singing cowboy.

 

[kalinecountry]

I agree with Thumb's and Stonecold's thoughts on Mr. Ilitch.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did go over the luxury tax threshold for a year or two. Also, he reminds me of Gene Autry and Tom Yawkey the owner of the redsox for years and years,
trading for stars to bring a championship to his team.

 

[swami45]

This team hasn't exactly been making a huge profit either. I think they made only 7.5 in 2013 and will probably be less in 2014.

As bad as Illitch may want to win im not sure he is willing to just piss away 30 to 40 million to do it.

 

[swami45]

Also last time Illitch did go for it and crossed over the luxury tax was 2008. We all remember that season. The following 2 seasons they combined to lose over 55 million in operating income.

 

[manchild98]

Also last time Illitch did go for it and crossed over the luxury tax was 2008. We all remember that season. The following 2 seasons they combined to lose over 55 million in operating income.

And he' still filthy rich and spent a bunch of money to build them back into winners the following years.

 

[stonecold2136]

Also last time Illitch did go for it and crossed over the luxury tax was 2008. We all remember that season. The following 2 seasons they combined to lose over 55 million in operating income.

Just the cost of doing business. Look at the money ate in the Fielder contract. Back over the years Damion Easley 14.3 dead money , Sheffield 14 million in 1 season, Bobby Higgenson, maybe even Tony Clark

 

[swami45]

Just the cost of doing business. Look at the money ate in the Fielder contract. Back over the years Damion Easley 14.3 dead money , Sheffield 14 million in 1 season, Bobby Higgenson, maybe even Tony Clark

Eating contracts is one thing, teams do it all the time. Its when you have no revenue coming in to offset those losses.

 

[swami45]

And he' still filthy rich and spent a bunch of money to build them back into winners the following years.

He actually spent less, payroll droped significantly the following two seasons till income rose and dead contracts were off the books. He spent what the budget allowed. Its not what his bank account allows

 

[Mitchrapp]

Every owner is filthy rich. Just because they all are doesn't mean they want to operate at a loss..

 

[Rebbiv]

They do not become rich by being stupid with their money. Being old and rich is no guarantee he is going to change that. I believe a lot of this is wishful thinking on fan's part.

Also, I heard they lost money in 2014. So you can only lose so much before effecting franchise value.

 

[swami45]

Also if the sign Scherzer they are looking at a cap hit next year near 140 million between just 6 players. They will have holes at 2 OF spots, catcher, starting pitcher, closer, and setup man. They can't fill all of those in house. There has to be some planning for the future.

 

[tomdalton22]

Also if the sign Scherzer they are looking at a cap hit next year near 140 million between just 6 players. They will have holes at 2 OF spots, catcher, starting pitcher, closer, and setup man. They can't fill all of those in house. There has to be some planning for the future.

If they were to sign Scherzer I would guess that they would trade Price.

 

[Thumb]

If they were to sign Scherzer I would guess that they would trade Price.

Why not keep him for the year? If they decide to sign Max they will already have committed spending more than they are likely to recover for several years, why no spend the extra money Price is owed for 1 more year to take a shot at winning.

The dumbest thing they could do (outside of signing Max or Price at all) is to sign Max and trade Price away unless they got an incredible return on him, which is unlikely right now. Right now we assume the rotation will be JV/Sanchez/Price/Greene/ and Simon or Lobstien. Sign Max and it's JV/Max/Sanchez/Price/Greene with Simon in the pen, 1 year of Cespedes, 1 more year of Davis, Soria, likely 1 year of Avila.

Basically if you sign Max you better take the best shot you can at winning in 2015, because after that it's going to be bad around here with no payroll to replace the players that are leaving and the high paid ones here just getting a year older.

But for the love of all that is baseball Mr. I, please don't sign Max unless he comes way down on both money and years. ~signed fans beyond 2015

 

[tomdalton22]

Why not keep him for the year? If they decide to sign Max they will already have committed spending more than they are likely to recover for several years, why no spend the extra money Price is owed for 1 more year to take a shot at winning.

The dumbest thing they could do (outside of signing Max or Price at all) is to sign Max and trade Price away unless they got an incredible return on him, which is unlikely right now. Right now we assume the rotation will be JV/Sanchez/Price/Greene/ and Simon or Lobstien. Sign Max and it's JV/Max/Sanchez/Price/Greene with Simon in the pen, 1 year of Cespedes, 1 more year of Davis, Soria, likely 1 year of Avila.

Basically if you sign Max you better take the best shot you can at winning in 2015, because after that it's going to be bad around here with no payroll to replace the players that are leaving and the high paid ones here just getting a year older.

But for the love of all that is baseball Mr. I, please don't sign Max unless he comes way down on both money and years. ~signed fans beyond 2015

I agree 100% as far as not signing Max. But, if you do sign him you are going to have to compete for several years with those high priced guys and a bunch of young cheap guys. The Tigers would need to add some young cheap guys and the best way to get them in that scenario would be by trading Price.

 

[Thumb]

I agree 100% as far as not signing Max. But, if you do sign him you are going to have to compete for several years with those high priced guys and a bunch of young cheap guys. The Tigers would need to add some young cheap guys and the best way to get them in that scenario would be by trading Price.

Right, but what I'm trying to explain is if you sign Max you're saying you don't give a shit about the money if it gets you a championship now, you have screwed the future anyways. And Max + Price is better than just Max or Price.

A few prospects that you would get for trading Price probably won't change anything much in that regards.

 

[stonecold2136]

Also if the sign Scherzer they are looking at a cap hit next year near 140 million between just 6 players. They will have holes at 2 OF spots, catcher, starting pitcher, closer, and setup man. They can't fill all of those in house. There has to be some planning for the future.

You mean the Luxury tax.There is no hard cap in MLB. We will never know what a team makes. No owner is going to willingly open the books. Here is an article that shows some TV network revenue of some of the clubs. I doubt any team is losing money.

There's some truth to that scenario, but it largely misses the point, because the real money doesn't come from tickets sales, or beer and hot dogs. The real money in baseball comes from television.

There are two sources of television revenue for each MLB team, the national contract and the local contract. The national contract is negotiated by MLB. It includes the rights to nationally televised games on particular afternoons and evenings, the All-Star Game, and the postseason. These are the games that are on FOX, ESPN, TBS, and the MLB Network. The money from the national TV deals is split evenly by all thirty teams, no matter how many of their games are actually shown across those national networks.



The local contract is negotiated by the individual team, a deal negotiated with whichever company?s offer they like the best. For the Indians, that?s SportsTime Ohio (which was created and is owned by the Dolan family). The money from each team?s local TV deal is mostly kept by the team. The Indians have been getting somewhere between $25-30 million from their local TV contract in recent years. Not long ago, that would have put them in the bottom half of all teams, but not dramatically behind many teams. Recently though, there has been a massive shift in the amount of money networks have been willing to pay.



In 2010, the Rangers announced a new deal with Fox Sports Southwest that will pay them ~$150 million a year. In 2011, the Angels announced an almost identical deal with Fox Sports West, they?ll also be getting ~$150 million per season. Those figures dwarf the Indians? sum. Even accounting for the revenue sharing portion of each team?s local contract (one third of the money is pooled), the Rangers and Angels are each pocketing an extra $80 million a year, compared to the Tribe. Starting next year, the Houston Astros will be getting $85 million a year and the San Diego Padres will be getting $75 million. Up the coast, the Los Angeles Dodgers are near a new TV deal that is expected to be in the ballpark of $200 million a year. Sit back and think about that for a minute? $200 million!



The New York Yankees are being paid $90 million a season by the YES Network, seemingly a rare instance in which they?re not the wealthiest team in baseball. The Red Sox are paid $60 million by NESN, which seems like small potatoes compared to some of the other figures I?ve mentioned. Of course, the Yankees own over 30% of the YES Network, whose profits were reportedly ~$450 million in 2011. The Red Sox own 80% of NESN, also a very profitable corporation. Both ownership groups are bringing in far more money than the team is officially paid for television rights, money that isn?t a part of MLB?s revenue sharing pool. The Yankees could run a $400 million payroll and still turn a profit.



At $30 million a year, the Indians are way behind a lot of other teams. Of course, as I said, SportsTime Ohio is largely owned by the Dolan family. The network, which televises other sporting events of interest to Ohioans, certainly brings in more than $30 million a year. How much of that additional profit might be going into the ball club, no one can say. How much of it should go into the team is up for debate. In any event, STO isn?t earning what the YES Network does, because Cleveland?s TV market is far smaller than New York?s. The Indians will always lag behind in local television revenue, and the discrepancy may only get wider with time.



The national TV contracts, as I said, are divided evenly among all thirty teams. There?s been big, big news on that front recently, as FOX, ESPN, and TBS all signed new deals with Major League Baseball in the last few weeks, deals that substantially increase the amount of money coming into baseball. The new contracts will put an additional $740 million into baseball (annually) which works out to almost $25 million for each team (the new contracts all run through 2021).



On one level, this impacts every team identically, because the money going to each of them from the new contracts is identical, but on another level, this money impacts small market teams far more than large market teams, because an additional $25 million is a much bigger difference to them.



ESPN?s payroll data lists the Yankees as having had a $195M payroll in 2012. An extra $25M would lead to a 13% increase. The Oakland A?s payroll was $49 million, the new money would allow for a 51% increase. Now, that?s an over simplification, because teams won?t necessarily funnel all of the new money into big league payroll. It may go into improved facilities, scouting, and infrastructure. Still, it should be clear that a team like Oakland can use the money to bring about much greater change than a team like the Yankees.



The Indians 2012 payroll was listed at $66 million, so an extra $25M would lead to a 38% increase.



That money doesn?t kick in until 2014, but the time to spend is now. Eventually, player salaries will catch up with the higher revenue streams. Owners may pocket some of the money initially, perhaps to pay themselves back for prior losses (though I question if anyone is truly losing money through its ownership of an MLB team). Eventually though, players and their agents, along with fans, will push for the money to be spent on payroll. At that point, while the Indians should be able to carry a slightly higher relative payroll, the major advantage of additional money will be lost.



The Dodgers are one team that?s clearly already spending the money they see on the horizon, since their new ownership group took over, they?ve acquired a number of huge contracts, in hopes of making a quick turnaround. I would like to see the Indians work out a long-term deal with Jason Kipnis, see if they can buy out a couple years of his free agency, even though it?s a ways away. They should be aggressive in acquiring other players this off-season too. It isn?t the deepest free agent class, but this is a good time to sign solid players to contracts that will likely look very reasonable once salary inflation kicks in by 2015.



This off-season is an opportunity to get a jump on more conservative teams, the Indians should make competitive offers to the top available pitchers, make aggressive offers to teams that are looking to trade valuable players, even if it means taking on salary. Spend as though the new TV money is already here, rather than a year away, before the market corrects itself and salaries climb across the board.

 

[tomdalton22]

I was just surfing the net and thought I would look up how Porcello was doing in Boston. Looks like he is pitching like shit. 6 straight losses, 5.61 ERA. Simon and Cespedes are playing well for the Tigers. The season isn't over though