Rebuild mode or Sell mode?

[LookinUp]

49 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This isn’t entirely accurate.

The team will eventually spend money, assuming they become good.

What they aren’t doing is saying, well let’s save 50M this year and apply that 50M to the 2023 payroll.  Zero chance of that.  When they spend, they will do so because of revenue they are generating, not because they saved money in earlier seasons.

Yeah, I don't think it's a 1:1 relationship, but I do think there is some relationship.

In general, I think most money is with the corporate entity, not the personal ownership. That corporate entity distributes earnings in some way every year, but I really doubt they just distribute every dollar and cent. I expect that they have an operating account that fluctuates in its reserves. Those reserves affect available cash flow, which effects things like bonus payments that can be offered.

I obviously don't know how the organization manages those accounts, but I generally think that some proportion of savings isn't pocketed, and that those savings improve the ability to increase future operating expenses. If that's true, then there is a benefit to spending less as it relates to future years.

Also, if I were the owner, I'd want there to be that benefit available to my GM so he has the flexibility to manage money over time. Doing so would also help me line my pockets, since I'm taking a % every year. I think those incentives can align, but freely admit that I don't know how this happens in real life.

 

[Sports Guy]

23 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yeah, I don't think it's a 1:1 relationship, but I do think there is some relationship.

In general, I think most money is with the corporate entity, not the personal ownership. That corporate entity distributes earnings in some way every year, but I really doubt they just distribute every dollar and cent. I expect that they have an operating account that fluctuates in its reserves. Those reserves affect available cash flow, which effects things like bonus payments that can be offered.

I obviously don't know how the organization manages those accounts, but I generally think that some proportion of savings isn't pocketed, and that those savings improve the ability to increase future operating expenses. If that's true, then there is a benefit to spending less as it relates to future years.

Also, if I were the owner, I'd want there to be that benefit available to my GM so he has the flexibility to manage money over time. Doing so would also help me line my pockets, since I'm taking a % every year. I think those incentives can align, but freely admit that I don't know how this happens in real life.

 

Yea I think you are kidding yourself if you think owners are doing this, especially this ownership group.

They will spend when the money is there to spend.  This franchise isn’t spending to make more money.  They are waiting on that and they don’t need to.  They are making so much money that they should always be investing in the product.  A pro sports franchise is like no other business in the world.  
 

Now, by not spending poorly now, they have more payroll flexibility long term.  That’s for sure true but that’s very different than saying they are saving money in some rainy day fund and will use it later.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yeah, I don't think it's a 1:1 relationship, but I do think there is some relationship.

In general, I think most money is with the corporate entity, not the personal ownership. That corporate entity distributes earnings in some way every year, but I really doubt they just distribute every dollar and cent. I expect that they have an operating account that fluctuates in its reserves. Those reserves affect available cash flow, which effects things like bonus payments that can be offered.

I obviously don't know how the organization manages those accounts, but I generally think that some proportion of savings isn't pocketed, and that those savings improve the ability to increase future operating expenses. If that's true, then there is a benefit to spending less as it relates to future years.

Also, if I were the owner, I'd want there to be that benefit available to my GM so he has the flexibility to manage money over time. Doing so would also help me line my pockets, since I'm taking a % every year. I think those incentives can align, but freely admit that I don't know how this happens in real life.

 

Yea I think you are kidding yourself if you think owners are doing this, especially this ownership group.

They will spend when the money is there to spend.  This franchise isn’t spending to make more money.  They are waiting on that and they don’t need to.  They are making so much money that they should always be investing in the product.  A pro sports franchise is like no other business in the world.  
 

Now, by not spending poorly now, they have more payroll flexibility long term.  That’s for sure true but that’s very different than saying they are saving money in some rainy day fund and will use it later.

[Number5]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

This isn’t entirely accurate.

The team will eventually spend money, assuming they become good.

What they aren’t doing is saying, well let’s save 50M this year and apply that 50M to the 2023 payroll.  Zero chance of that.  When they spend, they will do so because of revenue they are generating, not because they saved money in earlier seasons.

Looks like you said that what Frobby said was inaccurate, then proceeded to immediately prove that what he said is accurate.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Looks like you said that what Frobby said was inaccurate, then proceeded to immediately prove that what he said is accurate.

No, Frobby believes that the Os will save money now and spend it later.  He believes in the rainy day fund concept, at least that’s what he seems to believe.

What I’m saying is that by not spending dumb money now, you have more flexibility later. That’s not the same thing.

[Number5]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

There are many people on this board who believe that if money isn’t spent in Year 1, it will not be used for the team in some future competitive year but will just line the Angelos family’s pockets.   I personally do not believe that, but arguing about it is like arguing about religion.    You’ll never convince the people who disagree with you.   

 

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

This isn’t entirely accurate.

The team will eventually spend money, assuming they become good.

What they aren’t doing is saying, well let’s save 50M this year and apply that 50M to the 2023 payroll.  Zero chance of that.

This is what Frobby said and what you said.  You said that he was inaccurate and immediately proved his point.  You can't make this stuff up.  

 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

This is what Frobby said and what you said.  You said that he was inaccurate and immediately proved his point.  You can't make this stuff up.  

 

Well, it doesn’t take a genius to realize I’m not disagreeing with the second part of what you bolded.

[Number5]

Everything he said was accurate, and you proved it.  Whether he believes as you do or not is irrelevant.  His point was simply that there are people that do not believe that money saved this year will be applied to future years.  Of course that is accurate, as you proved by stating that you believe exactly that.  There was nothing about his post to disagree with.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Everything he said was accurate, and you proved it.  Whether he believes as you do or not is irrelevant.  His point was simply that there are people that do not believe that money saved this year will be applied to future years.  Of course that is accurate, as you proved by stating that you believe exactly that.  There was nothing about his post to disagree with.

Yea there is.  The overall context of the conversation and his several posts on the subject.  That is where the disagreement is. (You know, the line you didn’t bold)

Im sure Frobby is excited to have you attempting to fight his battles for him but I think he’s quite capable of speaking for himself.

[Number5]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yea there is.  The overall context of the conversation and his several posts on the subject.  That is where the disagreement is. 

Im sure Frobby is excited to have you attempting to fight his battles for him but I think he’s quite capable of speaking for himself.

I'm not fighting his fight.  In fact, he wasn't fighting, and neither am I.  He made an obviously true observation and you somehow claimed he was inaccurate.  That is all I addressed.  His statement was accurate in every way.  I know that you will never admit this and stop trying to argue, so I will leave it at that.

[hoosiers]

On 12/29/2020 at 12:39 PM, Philip said:

Oh of course, I don’t doubt that for a bit, but that doesn’t refute my comment that the Astros, with two straight number one picks, chose two guys that were each miserable failures, yet traded one before he failed, and didn’t sign the other and were given a compensatory draft pick which they used on a no-brainer prospect.

thats luck.

If we had not signed, say, Hobgood, and been given a compensatory draft pick in lieu, That would’ve been luck as well, Because we would have successfully dodged a bullet.

I don't know what there is to "refute",  You and I may have different definitions of luck.  Trading a prospect near peak value may not be as lucky as you think, but a smart course of action.  There have been numerous examples of players traded before seeing value drop and players traded who see their values rights - both happened in the Chris Archer deal that included Glasnow.  You have to trust your scouts and your development guys and your GM.

Certainly, the Astros had top draft picks that were destined not to pan out.  Whether the rest is luck or not is subjective IMO and not definitive.

[HowAboutThat]

36 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

I don't know what there is to "refute",  You and I may have different definitions of luck.  Trading a prospect near peak value may not be as lucky as you think, but a smart course of action.  There have been numerous examples of players traded before seeing value drop and players traded who see their values rights - both happened in the Chris Archer deal that included Glasnow.  You have to trust your scouts and your development guys and your GM.

Certainly, the Astros had top draft picks that were destined not to pan out.  Whether the rest is luck or not is subjective IMO and not definitive.

They chose Brady Aiken in 2014. He did not sign.

The Indians did sign him in 2015 and he’s been awful.

The Astros got a compensatory pick that became Bregman.

If Aiken HAD signed with Houston, he would have failed with them, and they would not have had Bregman. I don’t see how that can be called anything but luck.

Regarding Appel, trading a 1-1 while he is still far away from the Bigs is by definition selling cheap. That may have been partially stupidity on the part of the Phillies, but it was definitely luck for the Astros.

BTW I went back and checked the events and I think I got everything correct but maybe not.

I don’t disagree that possibly we define “luck” differently but I don’t see how those two events aren’t lucky breaks for the Astros.

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

They chose Brady Aiken in 2014. He did not sign.

The Indians did sign him in 2015 and he’s been awful.

The Astros got a compensatory pick that became Bregman.

If Aiken HAD signed with Houston, he would have failed with them, and they would not have had Bregman. I don’t see how that can be called anything but luck.

Regarding Appel, trading a 1-1 while he is still far away from the Bigs is by definition selling cheap. That may have been partially stupidity on the part of the Phillies, but it was definitely luck for the Astros.

BTW I went back and checked the events and I think I got everything correct but maybe not.

I don’t disagree that possibly we define “luck” differently but I don’t see how those two events aren’t lucky breaks for the Astros.

 

It isn't luck because Aiken failed a physical.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't luck because Aiken failed a physical.

Well considering how things worked out, it actually was pretty lucky that he failed it.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well considering how things worked out, it actually was pretty lucky that he failed it.

I mean it worked out well for him but maybe if Aiken hadn't had the issue that caused him to fail the physical he would have been a great player.

The Astros had no idea he had the issue when they picked him and their medical staff did their job.

You could say they were lucky that Aiken didn't accept their lower offer.