So much this. Unfortunately i think That although the thought of a WS win is great to these guys in the end they keep score based on money. To many factors can keep you from winning a championship. On the other ha d getting the highest contract for your position gives you bragging rights.

So my question....what kind of revenue profit increase does an owner see from a WS victory? The increase in ticket sales the next year, increase in merch sales from all the WS stuff, ad money increases?

My thought process is that if Crane sees a huge bump from those items if we were to win maybe that will be the push he needs to spend into the luxury tax. Plus future revenues from having that rotation under control a few more years to possibly win some more

I have no problem with the prospects we gave up for Greinke. But it does suck that his contract is potentially keeping us from signing Cole.

If you win the WS this year it doesnt matter at all and 100% worth it.

then again, they may have made the Greinke deal already knowing they werent signing Cole.

gigemJTH12 said:

---

I have no problem with the prospects we gave up for Greinke. But it does suck that his contract is potentially keeping us from signing Cole.

If you win the WS this year it doesnt matter at all and 100% worth it.

then again, they may have made the Greinke deal already knowing they werent signing Cole.

---

Agreed.

My guess is that our original plan was to trade for a Bumgarner rental type or a Ray/Boyd controllable-low salary type at the deadline... then try and resign Cole after the season. But I think a few things changed:

1) Asking prices for the Ray/Boyd types were too high
2) Rentals like Bumgarner were taken off the market
3) Cole's outstanding season meant he was going to demand a bigger contract than we anticipated

So we grabbed Greinke and hedged 2020/2021 at $24 million/year, essentially meaning we'll let Cole walk

Deluxe said:

---

I really hope Cole goes to the NL (San Diego maybe?) but I'm more and more thinking he goes to the Angels. They desperately need a front line starter. They have money to spend. They aren't averse to giving out huge money over long periods. And they get the added benefit of not having to face him 4-5 times per year. That alone will probably allow them to justify an extra $10-20 million on his deal.

I keep hearing 7/$230 and I don't think it's Luhnow's MO to bog down the payroll for that long with a pitcher who's almost 30...even if Crane gave the ok and/or we're able to clear out the cap space. It seems like the reason we got Greinke is to lock down our No. 2 next year knowing Cole's exit is basically inevitable.

And agree with the previous poster to just enjoy watching him right now. If he pitches well and gets us a ring, I'll give him a standing O when he returns to MMP.

---

Do they?

A quick glance at spotrac and it shows their cap space in 2019 was 24 M. The are losing Cahill (9 M), but have another 10 guys hitting arbitration. Say those 10 net out of only 9 M. Cole isn't going to take a deal paying him less than 25 M a year. He'll put them in the luxury taxes.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Do they?

A quick glance at spotrac and it shows their cap space in 2019 was 24 M. The are losing Cahill (9 M), but have another 10 guys hitting arbitration. Say those 10 net out of only 9 M. Cole isn't going to take a deal paying him less than 25 M a year. He'll put them in the luxury taxes.

---

You might be right. I don't know the intricacies of their financial situation, what sort of flexibility they have, who's expendable, etc, but it looks like they have $69 million in projected space next year (not including their arb guys, who will eat a decent-sized chunk of that).

And totally agree about the $25 million number. I'm thinking he's not signing anything below the $33 million AAV deal that JV got.

Especially in California with all the taxes he will have to pay when he could get the same in Texas and not pay said taxes

So how has Dave Cameron (founder of Fangraphs) done in his first two seasons in the Padres front office?

He was hired in January 2018.

2018: 66-96 last in division
2019: 70-92 last in division (Yay improvement after signing Machado!)

To his defense, when he joined they were a mess. But they are still a mess. They have absolutely no pitching, and are paying guys like Eric Hosmer to have negative WAR. And paying an absorbent amount to Machado for a bunch of years where they will, at best, compete for a wild card and likely fall short.

Of their top organizational prospects, only 4 were drafted after Cameron was hired (#4, #5, #8, #10). There is only four more between 10 and 30. #20 is Hudson Head who was projected as a 1st rounder or supplemental round guy this year, who they drafted in the 3rd round and paid 1st round money by signing the first three picks under slot (essentially their version of Lance McCullers whom we had had a similar strategy with). The overwhelming majority of their prospects are 2016 and 2017 draftees (which is fair considering they have had time to rise through the system). But when you get to the 15-30 range, usually you want to see more of your recent picks showing up as they still have the aura of upside. It's almost scary how few of them there are. The Astros 20-30 range has quite a few guys from the recent two classes.

To be fair, again, it might take another year or two before we can accurately evaluate the "expertise" Cameron has added to their drafting through his analytics. And we have no idea how much say or weight his methods or expertise are given.

All I know is that every single article or chat he ever had, he was bearish on the Astros, never hesitating to take subtle jabs, even though our methods aligned with his analytics. He always struck me as extremely biased, constantly overrating his hometown Mariners. I never saw him as the expert that everyone else did. I guess time will tell. The Padres aren't exactly tanking with hopes of building up from analytics. They are merely routinely treading water.

Also, Jeff Sullivan of fangraphs was hired by the Rays. Hard to insinuate that they were better because of him, but it could be fun to track those two clubs over the next couple of years.

In contrast to the Angels, I think one of the things the Astros have done extremely well is how they have managed their the contract obligations for their higher end talent. Giving Altuve and Bregman 6 year deals (in bregs case trading higher salary in his team control years for 2 years of his potential feee agency) allows the a ton of flexibility without taking the risk of 10+ year deal where you may end up with a debilitating financial commitment in the out years. Same with JV, he's 36 and you get him for 2 more years. JV could have demanded a 5 year real which at his age would have been a huge risk. I think a big part of this is the winning culture the team has established from top to bottom. Guys just want to play for the Astros and seem to be willing to offer some flexibility on contract terms.

think cole would accept a contract with annual salaries of 15/15/40/40/40/40/30? so, 7 years, 220 mil; gets the record contract, and gives houston an ace for 7 years

07ag said:

---

think cole would accept a contract with annual salaries of 15/15/40/40/40/40/30? so, 7 years, 220 mil; gets the record contract, and gives houston an ace for 7 years

---

no.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

When is the last time coaching staff was part of a trade?

---

I think Monix was traded for a washing machine in the old ABA but he was a player-coach

Throwback from March:

Mike Trout....... Perhaps the biggest star in all of sports to never amount to any postseason success

I'm sure it has been discussed, so sorry, but why is luxury tax based on average annual value? Is that a player's union thing to prevent front loading/back loading contracts?

spadilly said:

---

---

Where are y'all going to keep changing the backgrounds

WelchAg said:

---

I'm sure it has been discussed, so sorry, but why is luxury tax based on average annual value? Is that a player's union thing to prevent front loading/back loading contracts?

---

Yes. Because thankfully, the people that made the decision understood loopholes.

Prevents wealthier teams from being able to back-load contracts and avoid the luxury tax. If you have 4 star players that are all $30M AAV, that represents 4 great players. If you were able to back-load to avoid the tax, you could still have those six players, but at maybe $25M a year each if you were able to sequence the contracts correctly. Under the current system, you probably only get to keep 3 of those players.

Now, whether you agree with competitive balance or not is a different debate. I think it's a good thing in sports leagues and is one reason why baseball has so much parity. I see this as more of a smaller market owner thing to prevent 3-4 teams from running the show and setting the free agent market each year. I'm sure the players are on their side, too, but don't see this as just a union thing.

spadilly said:

---

Throwback from March:

---

I wonder if Correa hurt his back sitting at that podium. It looked more uncomfortable than first class on an airplane.

He's a dick of a person. But that usually is what it takes to get things done at that level.