2036 Johnson FA Podcast

[Ted]

In which Randy continues to drink and type, I get really tired and crabby, and we talk about the Johnson FA signings through the preseason of 2036. As I listen to these to edit them, I'm always a bit abashed of my own certainty about how right my way is at times. I'm certainly fallible and have made many mistakes, fake baseball or otherwise. Of note, while discussing Nashville I got on a bit of a rant, and frankly, listening to it it comes across as more judgmental than I meant it to. I would point out, that when ever I get animated about a GM doing something "the wrong way" it is almost always because I have seen the "mistake" many times before. My irritation comes from watching another person make the same mistake. That reasoning aside, I sure as heck don't know what Brett is thinking, and perhaps his reasons are sound. So, my apologies Brett, I was not intending intense criticism, just ranting about a model I think I see a lot (whether or not that it the one you are embracing or it just looks like it) that I feel doesn't work well. Similarly, should Randy or I offend anyone with criticism, know that it was not intentional, and more because we're both too intellectually lazy at times to pick our words better, or investigate far enough to understand what is actually going on. Apologies.

Atlantic City 1:16
Frick - San Fernando and Des Moines late signings 8:04
Brooklyn 13:54
Charm City Jimmies 16:27
Montreal 20:27
Jacksonville 26:24
Rockville 26:57
Huntsville 28:35
New Orleans 34:27
Louisville 36:50
Nashville 41:21
Las Vegas 51:00
Mexico City 57:33
Phoenix 1:01:27
Wichita 1:06:00
San Antonio 1:14:00

[GoldenOne]

Great, now I’m actually going to have to listen to this.

Must be a good rant since you spent almost 10 minutes on Nashville and I didn’t even sign any FAs. (Tried for a few but kept getting outbid.)

[agrudez]

I share your love for Garza, Ted. Best reliever in HSV history hands down - very, very excited to have him back in the fold for the final leg of his HOF career.

Big props for remembering the J-Rod situation from a few years back, btw. That's some Brewster trivia night right there.

[Ted]

Great, now I’m actually going to have to listen to this.

Must be a good rant since you spent almost 10 minutes on Nashville and I didn’t even sign any FAs. (Tried for a few but kept getting outbid.)

Yup. And that right there is the stuff I don't know, that makes all the difference in the world when I get all judge-y. It really was intended to be more of a comment on what I think is the right way to pull a team out of the cellar, but I think came across as a complaint about your management in particular. That was NOT the intent. I'll have to not drink all day, then stay up late and get crabby in the future when I do these.

[bcslouck]

No way, man. Drunk and sleep deprived crabbiness is more entertaining.

[agrudez]

It's not like Nashville is running a scorched Earth payroll. They are probably already right about the "break even" point payroll wise relative to their expected revenue - and that's even after finding a sucker to take Jenkins (I say sucker, but WIC had the cap space and got a nice young player for their troubles so /meh). If they had been stuck with Jenkins (which until they actually traded him I would've assumed that no one would ever take him off their hands) AND added payroll you'd be looking at 30M+ losses, probably. If the owner even let them do it.

[Rubaboo]

Compton has been a definite source of frustration in my world, especially considering his salary situation. The loose plan to start this season is to move him to 2B and slide Dashiell Faireborn into the starting SS spot. That should help my IF defense overall as well as helping Compton by getting him into a slightly less demanding fielding role. We'll see what shakes out of that.

[Lane]

If they had been stuck with Jenkins (which until they actually traded him I would've assumed that no one would ever take him off their hands)

It continues to amaze me that there seems to ALWAYS be someone willing to take on pretty much any contract.

[Ted]

It's not like Nashville is running a scorched Earth payroll. They are probably already right about the "break even" point payroll wise relative to their expected revenue - and that's even after finding a sucker to take Jenkins (I say sucker, but WIC had the cap space and got a nice young player for their troubles so /meh). If they had been stuck with Jenkins (which until they actually traded him I would've assumed that no one would ever take him off their hands) AND added payroll you'd be looking at 30M+ losses, probably. If the owner even let them do it.

I would propose that you gamble a bit and try to find a two to five wins worth of players you that push your payroll to the absolute limit, figuring it will increase. You can always spend PP to do it yourself if you fail. But yeaah, your point is valid. Nashville made me think about the thing I got on a rant about, but really they we're some horrible offender, which is the reaason for my big apologetic statement in the post.

[RonCo]

It's not like Nashville is running a scorched Earth payroll. They are probably already right about the "break even" point payroll wise relative to their expected revenue ...

Perhaps oddly, though, the goal isn't to make a profit. The goal is to increase revenue, even is you "lose money" for a year or two in the process.

I think this is what drives Ted's rants on occasion.

[agrudez]

I mean, show me the correlation between spending 10M on payroll and making 10M in ticket sales. Nashville could've snatched up the 3 best FAs in the pool this offseason and still struggled to win 60 games and, thus, struggled to make even a modest revenue. Over-extending themselves financially would've done nothing good for them, imo.

The real crux of the conversation is... why is a <60 win team running a barely sustainable payroll already? Start fixing that first (jettisoning chaff: Miranda, Cruz, Sutton, Tremblett; trading the pieces of actual value: Maeda) and then make your argument about signing guys to flip, et al.

[RonCo]

It's certainly possible (and if you don't know what you're doing, generally likely) to spend poorly and do yourself harm.

My only point was that the goal in a rebuild is not actually to turn a profit but to continuously add to revenue. If you turn a profit and lose revenue, you're hurting your franchise. I make a point of it because I constantly hear people say they're trying to turn a profit. Maybe it's just me being pedantic, though.

[agrudez]

Turning a profit is not the same thing as avoiding a crippling deficit. I am arguing for the latter, not the former.

[GoldenOne]

No way, man. Drunk and sleep deprived crabbiness is more entertaining.

[RonCo]

Turning a profit is not the same thing as avoiding a crippling deficit. I am arguing for the latter, not the former.

Fair enough. We're probably in violent agreement again.

But at $71M NSV's payroll isn't in great danger. Their total revenue is already $72M and the season hasn't started. They can probably spend $90M-$95M this year and not be too bad off, really...though Brett does have to pay $5M off the top in his ballpark fees until he gets his bonus funds up.

If he's going to build, he has to get his revenue up over $95M (which is what his budget is at now). So he needs to find a way to bring more than $23M in through gate and merchandising now. Ideally he can do that without deficit spending, but if he goes over a little, it's better to go over and make that revenue goal than it is to try to turn a profit and miss it.

[RonCo]

It would certainly be better if either the payroll was less, or if he wasn't spending in on replacement level guys like Tremblett. But the league has already crushed on some of those things.

[RonCo]

Nashville also has a bulk of their payroll coming off next year, so it's a pretty easily managed situation at this point.

Of course, I'm kind of with Ted as not being a big fan of the cash truck they gave Kamade (I suspect that he'll be a 1.5-2 WAR kind of guy by 27 years old, so anything over $8M would have been too rich for my blood...but that's just me and my views). But, assuming the team actually grows budget over time, at least that's a manageable deal if it goes haywire.

[GoldenOne]

Nashville also has a bulk of their payroll coming off next year, so it's a pretty easily managed situation at this point.

Of course, I'm kind of with Ted as not being a big fan of the cash truck they gave Kamade (I suspect that he'll be a 1.5-2 WAR kind of guy by 27 years old, so anything over $8M would have been too rich for my blood...but that's just me and my views). But, assuming the team actually grows budget over time, at least that's a manageable deal if it goes haywire.

To each his own on Kamade. In the end, its going to turn out to be a good deal, I'm not worried. And, if Randy is getting upset with me because I got a much better deal than what he was trying to work on with Kamade, that's good enough for me.

[RonCo]

To each his own on Kamade.

Completely concur. You need to run your team like you want to run it. There is no certain future, and I've been wrong before.

[agrudez]

Kamade's contract is a bit too rich for my blood, too, but, since he was brought up, I am not tracking Ted (on the podcast) and Ron (in thread) doomsaying his future just because he is a speed guy. Imo, you are applying a real life baseball principle (like BABIP dropping as a player ages, which Ted said on the podcast) that I am pretty confident doesn't exist in OOTP. I don't see much if any realism in player decline in OOTP. Heavyset power hitters (like Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder and Chris Davis from MLB) don't fall off a cliff at 30 in OOTP like they do in real life and speedy players (like Leon Sandcastle and Gerardo Guzman in BBA) don't 'lose a step' when they hit 30 either. Decline in OOTP feels pretty random unless precipitated by a bad injury history in my experience.