The Ebenezer A's
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Dec 16, 2007 6:53 PM PST
36 comments
I'm not one for "wasting" money, but WTF? why can't the A's ownership spend some money on players? Why can other owners, who worth less money than Fisher-Wolff (4th richest ownership group in MLB) spend some dough and we A's fans get "the shaft"?
We have completely dismantled the great 2001 Oakland A's to the point where contributors to this site are getting excited for rejects/scrubs like: Denorfia, Cus,t Crosby and Hananhan.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/...
The 400 Richest Americans
#297 John J Fisher
09.21.06, 10:00 AM ETRank
Name
Net Worth (\$bil)
Age
Residence
Source
Net Worth $1.3 billion Source The Gap (quote: GPS), Retailing, InheritedAge 45
Marital Status Married, 4 children
Hometown San Francisco, CA, United States
Education Princeton University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business AdministrationParents Donald and Doris developed real estate, then founded music-and-jeans store the Gap in San Francisco 1969. Public 1976; expanded with Banana Republic (1983), Old Navy (1994), Forth & Towne (2005). Sales: $16 billion. Now 3,000 stores worldwide. Parents handed control of company—and nearly half of their stock—to second generation 2004. Shares flat since. Brother Robert (see) serves as chairman; William (see) ran company's international stores until 1998; John co-owner of pro baseball's Oakland A's.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/...
The World's Billionaires
#799 Arturo Moreno
03.08.07, 6:00 PM ET
Age: 60Fortune: self made
Source: billboards
Net Worth: $1.2 bil
Country Of Citizenship: United States
Residence: Phoenix, Arizona , United States, North America
Industry: Service
Marital Status: married, 3 children
Education: University of Arizona, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Phoenix native partnered with advertising genius William Levine, who founded Outdoor Systems 1980 with billboards, bus station ads. Vietnam vet Moreno joined 1984. Took public 1996, sold to Infinity Broadcast Corp. 1999 for $8.7 billion in stock. Became Viacom following 2000 merger; today Moreno owns 8.8 million shares of Viacom worth $350 million, 10 million of CBS worth $315 million. Also owns Arizona commercial real estate; stakes in pro baseball's Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, basketball's Phoenix Suns.
0 recs |
36 comments
Email
Print
Comments
EBeanezer, you say?
Tune in Tuesday...
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 16, 2007 7:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Revenue ...
The Angels had an estimated revenue of $187m in 2006 ... the A's had an estimated revenue of $146m.
In 2006, the Angels had an opening day payroll of $103m ... the A's had a payroll of (effectively - after factoring in Frank Thomas) $67m.
The Angels made $41m more and spent $36m more on payroll. Moreno isn't giving anyone charity -- he just bought a franchise in a more profitable market.
by devo on Dec 16, 2007 7:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How come you used 2006 listing for Fisher, but
2007 for Moreno? Gap had a bad year, and now he is down to 664
#
664 John J Fisher
03.08.07, 6:00 PM ETAge: 45
Fortune: inherited
Source: Gap
Net Worth: $1.5 bil
Country Of Citizenship: United States
Residence: San Francisco, California , United States, North America
Industry: Retailing
Marital Status: married, 4 children
Education: Princeton University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business Administration
Parents Donald and Doris developed real estate, then founded music-and-jeans store the Gap in San Francisco 1969. Public 1976; expanded with Banana Republic (1983), Old Navy (1994), Forth & Towne (2005). Now 3,100 stores worldwide. Parents handed control of company—and nearly half of their stock—to second generation 2004. Brother Robert serves as chairman; William ran company's international stores until 1998; John co-owner of pro baseball's Oakland A's.
by theblackpearl on Dec 16, 2007 9:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Unless you're lucky enough
to get an owner who treats owning a sports team as a public charity (there are a few, but not many), net worth of ownership is irrelevant. Most guys want their teams to at least break even financially, if not turn a profit.
Want a solution? Get the city to buy the team, and tax the hell out of the rich guys to fund it. Your solution is basically the same thing, except that you're expecting/requesting them to do it voluntarily.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 12:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
appreciation rates for MLB franchises ...
is significant. These teams are gold mines!
....spend some friggin' MONEY!!
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Dec 17, 2007 7:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
here's the sadddest part
as currently constituted, Haren was set to make the second highest pay in 08 to Chavez. His 4MM is now off the books (along with the contracts of Piazza, Kendall, and Loiaza). We are looking at a Marlin like payroll with Chavez getting paid about as much in 08 as the rest of his teamates combined.
by marco magic on Dec 17, 2007 7:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Current payroll: approx. 55 million
Chavez salary: 11 million
Holy exaggeration, Batman!
Also wrong: Kotsay, Ellis and Harden were all scheduled to make as much as, or more than, Haren.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 8:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
facts are irrelevant
by xbhaskarx on Dec 17, 2007 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland's Harden ...
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While the albatross contract of Kotsay was an
oversight on my part. Ellis and Harden are making basically the same amount.
However, my post was somewhat premeditated, considering Beane said "we know where we are going, and we are gonna go full bore" (in reference to rebuilding.
Haren will not be the last dealt, and by the time all the dealing is done I have no doubt in my mind that Chavez (if not dealt himself) will have payroll of probably 40% of the team.
I don't think that is unrealistic in a "full bore" firesale.
by marco magic on Dec 17, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's completely unrealistic ...
If Chavez and Kotsay teamed with 23 guys making the minimum, Chavez' contract still wouldn't be 40% of the team's overall payroll. Of course, there's no chance of even that happening. Gaudin isn't going anywhere, neither is Duke ... it's pretty unlikely that Crosby, Harden or Ellis will, either ... and for some reason, there hasn't been any talk of moving Embree. With those guys on board and Blanton, Street and Swisher out the door, Chavez is 22% of roughly $50m payroll.
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No chance?
Exactly why should the A's keep Kotsay. Even if they have to assume some of his salary and they get a cheeseburger for him why not trade him? He has no future with the team and will not put up numbers worthy of compensation picks via free agency.
Trading Kotsay seems like a real no-brainer.
Furthermore, why should the A's keep any player on this team that they do not fully intend to have beyond 2009. It just doesn't make any sense. Ellis is my absolute favorite A, but unless they are considering resigning him past 2008 there is no reason to hang onto him either.
In a "full bore" fire sale Blanton, Embree and Street are certainly gone, with the only possible remaining A as Swisher.
My point is, Chavez is the only one on the roster that should be making above league minimum, or relatively close, because he has no trade value and is locked in until 2010.
The only players making more than league minimum that should even be retained are Duke, Harden (0 trade value, and if ever healthy will most likely resign cheap since he has been given 100 chances), Calero (well we already signed him) and Crosby (cringe).
Now none of those players stand to make huge contracts, but seriously why keep ANYONE else? It just doesn't make sense to keep anyone who you can't say with confidence will be wearing green and gold post 2008.
Now if that mean Chavez makes exactly 32.2% I really don't care, my point is this team needs to dump anyone not part of the future NOW.
by marco magic on Dec 17, 2007 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They'd have to assume ...
Kotsay aside, if they kept the guys you listed (Duke, Harden, Crosby, Calero, Swisher) Crosby is 31% of payroll -- if the team has to pay half of Kotsay's salary (oh would it be so ...), it's down to 28%.
I made no statements as to whether or not a full bore fire sale is the right idea. For the most part, I think it is. I think the reason to keep Ellis and Embree is that I doubt they have much trade value and there is some value to having a team that isn't a complete embarrassment -- if nothing else, because if the team exceeds expectations, it will help to make bounce back seasons by Chavez or Harden more apparent in the case that we wish to deal them later.
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet
Season ticket prices continue to rise. It'd be easier to swallow if I felt they were adding value.
by skigurl on Dec 17, 2007 9:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
While I Agree.....
.....that A's ownership is being cheaper than they need be, it must be remembered that the 2001 team would only be a shadow of their former selves and the cheapness has actually put the A's in place to have a potentially powerhouse team in the future. The 2001 team was largely dismantled by 2006 when the A's went to the American League Championship series. Also, think about what the 2001 A's would be like in 2007. You'd have Mark Mulder on the perennial disabled list limited to a few ineffective starts. You'd have a declining Miguel Tejada with limited range at shortstop. There would be a disgraced and, several seasons into decline, Jason Giambi. You'd have a wildly inconsistent Barry Zito. Plus, who's Jason Isringhausen? Only Tim Hudson would still be relatively decent.
Instead, by getting rid of these guys at the right time, it opened things up for the 2006 team, and that in turn as opened up an even more promising future. Billy Beane just raided the Arizona farm system and will likely take some other suckers to the bank in exchange for talent that is peaking now.
Remember, Walter Haas dug into his pockets and paid for championship teams, but the problem was all of those guys then stayed around for their declining years as the championships stopped coming.
by may7 on Dec 17, 2007 10:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
As far as the wisdom of spending ...
back in 2001-2002 ... when the team, aside from its biggest offensive stars, was still young and getting better, investing money (perhaps in guys like Giambi and/or Tejada) would not necessarily (depending on larger budgetary issues, other options) have been a bad idea. Sure, we'd be paying them a couple of years longer than we'd like to, but can you imagine how good our teams would have been up to this point?
By the time decisions were being made on Mulder/Hudson/Zito, the team was much later into the competing cycle and adding long term investments, at that point, would not have been wise (or fruitful in the case of these examples).
Regardless, barring a MAJOR spending increase, I don't think there was any real way the A's aren't rebuilding either now or in the next year or so.
2008 has a lot of similarities to 1992. The team is clearly past its prime and has some valuable trade chips but it should have the ability to bounce back from a down year if they go for it. In 1992 we went for it, made the playoffs and got whipped by a superior Toronto Blue Jays team. In 2008, it looks like we're rebuilding a year early. The haul we got for Haren should make this rebuild a lot quicker than the one that took all of the 90s.
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, if Tejada had been signed
by the A's to his current deal, you would have a declining Tejada.
BUT, what of the past 3 years, 2004-2006. Replace Crosby with Tejada's production and what would you have gotten?
Also, Tejada, even with his declining production, even with his contract got the Orioles a decent haul from the Astros. Crosby? Err...
by rfloh on Dec 17, 2007 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the A's need a few down seasons. We all
talk about the barren minor leagues, and that coincides with the success we have had, and drafting in the middle 20's. We don't have the money like the Red Sox, and Yankees to pay over slot, so we need to get the good players in the slots they belon, which means if we pick in the top 15, they pay for a top 15 player. We have been picking in the later picks, and we have been getting the later talents, and it hasn't paid off like it had in the past. Now with most teams taking the same philosophy as the A's, we need to draft in front of those teams, and get the 1st priority of picks, instead of the 5th or 6th, in the first round.
by theblackpearl on Dec 17, 2007 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Awesome comment
and that is a key point that I haven't really seen made anywhere else.
I'm excited that the A's will finally be drafting somewhere higher than the 20s for once. And perhaps with some money freed up, we won't have to pass on great talent.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 17, 2007 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a's not drafting high enough at #12
i really wish the a's had lost an extra 6 games after seeing this:
- San Francisco Giants: Justin Smoak, 1b, South Carolina
Either Smoak or Eric Hosmer, or both, is going to be available when the Giants draft next June. Both are good bets to be fantastic pro hitters and the Giants haven’t had a good pro hitting prospect, beside current third baseman Angel Villalona, in a decade. The fit is there; the Giants should draft one of these players. For now, I’ll say Smoak hits 20 home runs next spring and becomes the guy.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 17, 2007 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
The A's do not need another first baseman. 3 of the top 15 organizational prospects are first basemen.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they could have been traded
by xbhaskarx on Dec 17, 2007 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Every time you trade, there's a transaction cost
of some kind, particularly when you're FORCED to trade by circumstances.
Why not just, I dunno, actually pick a player you need?
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because smoak rightfully belongs to us
by xbhaskarx on Dec 17, 2007 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then lobby MLB to change to the NHL draft format
Matt Carle was a Shark before he even went to college.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We need a SS,
so I think that guy they have the Pirates picking is going to slip down to 12th.
by mikeA on Dec 17, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want anybody
who's projected as a first-round pick of the Pirates.
They're notorious for deliberately picking players who will accept LESS than slot money to sign.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's a reach at #2 ...
he's probably a great pick at #12 ...
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno what the "slots" are
I suppose it could be the case that he's worth spending #12 pick money on (but not #2). Does anyone happen to have a chart?
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here ya go ...
http://www.mymlbdraft.com/MLB-Draft-...
#2 goes for about twice what #12 goes for.
by devo on Dec 17, 2007 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
Alright, I retract my earlier statement. Assuming he really is one of the top 2 shortstops in the draft, fire away.
by PaulThomas on Dec 17, 2007 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
