Blue Jays Discussion: Off-season Edition 5.0 - So now what?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eyedea

The Legend Continues
Jan 29, 2012
27,407
3,235
Toronto, Ontario
It is both fair to say that contracts in the early 90's had less risk than today, but also those were legitimate, top-end signings (the Morris contract was the second highest AAV ever and the highest for a pitcher, when they re-signed Carter after '92 that was tied for the second highest AAV ever).

That was my point. They were top-end signings, but they weren't long-term. What top-end players are looking for 1-2 year contracts in this day and age? Outside of Bautista right now, it doesn't really ever happen. Carter was a big contract, but he also ended up taking less than what he would have gotten in KC. Still, that wasn't the greatest contract either outside of him becoming immortalized.

And your Encarnacion/Molitor thing is inaccurate IMO. Encarnacion is Dave Winfield. When Winfield (who had a rather big playoff hit of his own) rejected the Jays initial offer in '92 and then wanted to test the market during the winter meetings, Gillick also went out and immediately replaced him instead of letting the market play out. But he went and signed one of the elite hitters in the game for three years, not Kendrys Morales and Steve Pearce.

(In all fairness to our management team, that is also the product of the two different ownership teams in place at their respective times).

So the argument would have then been to sign...Encarnacion? There wasn't a better hitter on the market. That's my comparison, EE to Molitor in terms of impact, but Molitor was also feasting Tony Gwynn style on pitchers, whereas we have witnessed the decline in EE.

e: just on some of the other points

- The romanticising of the Jays spending is basically related to the fact they won. If they had lost in the ALCS in '92/'93, with how things played out over the next 10 years the Jays would probably be in Portland or something right now. But Gillick tried to win with the homegrown core, then it kind of failed (if three ALCS failures in 7 years is failure), and then he just went all in. And there has to be a ton of credit to ownership for not just going all-in once, but doing it again (even moreso) after the '92 season and then doubling down to pick up one of the highest paid rentals at the '93 deadline. Then everyone just kind of ignores the fact that the Jays were a really medicore highly paid team in '94 with minimal upside because the strike came and flushed it all away. Couldn't have worked out much better for Gillick.

- Not that I was alive it for the start of it, but with SkyDome holding about 60% more people than Exhibition Stadium and having an extra 100-ish corporate boxes, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jays revenue outright doubled from 1988 to 1990. Which is probably why they had the extra payroll going forward. And the CAD also got consistently better from '86 onwards.

Of course the romanticizing is based on the fact that they won. I'm saying that the reason they won wasn't necessarily due to the fact that they spent. They had their core in place, they had their window (just like the Jays did). You and I both know Jack Morris was David Price-ing the Jays and they ended up winning in spite of his performance. Winfield was great during the season, but slightly above league average as a DH in the postseason and just ended up coming through at a clutch time (Pat Borders tha real MVP). Molitor though, he was the special beast. I just don't see that player on the market (and if he was the Jays would be hard pressed to sign him in today's world).

As for the rising CAD, doesn't that kind of support Rogers' spending? They're still likely to be among the top 10 in payroll based on the belief that they still have ~30m left over, and this is with the dollar being in worse shape than it was from '90-'93.
 

frost king

Registered User
Dec 11, 2013
458
1
As for the rising CAD, doesn't that kind of support Rogers' spending? They're still likely to be among the top 10 in payroll based on the belief that they still have ~30m left over, and this is with the dollar being in worse shape than it was from '90-'93.[/QUOTE]

In fact, the Cdn dollar has been stronger from 2012-16, than it was during 1990-93 run. About 2c stronger over the last few years. So the argument about the dollar doesn't hold water. The ball club is getting ripped off from its lack of a true TV rights contract. How do the Oakland A's get more for local rights, than Rogers pays the Jays? That is the real question.
 

Woodman19

Registered User
Jun 14, 2008
18,494
1,869
As for the rising CAD, doesn't that kind of support Rogers' spending? They're still likely to be among the top 10 in payroll based on the belief that they still have ~30m left over, and this is with the dollar being in worse shape than it was from '90-'93.

In fact, the Cdn dollar has been stronger from 2012-16, than it was during 1990-93 run. About 2c stronger over the last few years. So the argument about the dollar doesn't hold water. The ball club is getting ripped off from its lack of a true TV rights contract. How do the Oakland A's get more for local rights, than Rogers pays the Jays? That is the real question.

Canadian viewership is worth less in advertising than American ones.
 

Eyedea

The Legend Continues
Jan 29, 2012
27,407
3,235
Toronto, Ontario
In fact, the Cdn dollar has been stronger from 2012-16, than it was during 1990-93 run. About 2c stronger over the last few years. So the argument about the dollar doesn't hold water. The ball club is getting ripped off from its lack of a true TV rights contract. How do the Oakland A's get more for local rights, than Rogers pays the Jays? That is the real question.

Why are you bringing up 2012-2015? Shapiro/Atkins were not in charge during that time. 2016's CAD had a lower US exchange rate than any of the years from 1990-1993.

Sometimes I have trouble pinpointing what exactly people are arguing against. Do you hate "cheapkins"? Rogers? Both?
 

Kurtz

Registered User
Jul 17, 2005
10,034
6,893
If we dont make the playoffs that will be the situation and we will be getting a huge haul for him.

He is going to want 5 years at $125 million easily

at 5/125, we'd have signed him yesterday. I think we're looking at something like 7/200; the man's a perennial mvp candidate. And yeah, the mgmt is probably salivating at the return for him.
 

theaub

34-38-61-10-13-15
Nov 21, 2008
18,881
1,974
Toronto
Why are you bringing up 2012-2015? Shapiro/Atkins were not in charge during that time. 2016's CAD had a lower US exchange rate than any of the years from 1990-1993.

Sometimes I have trouble pinpointing what exactly people are arguing against. Do you hate "cheapkins"? Rogers? Both?

Mammoth US TV deals and revenue sharing in USD have more than offset that gap in exchange rate. Its rather obvious that ownership is the reason we don't spend to the tax line, but its not really worth arguing because its just how it is and its never going to change as long as we're owned by Rogers.

Canadian viewership is worth less in advertising than American ones.

C'mon...really? You think the Jays TV deal is worth $40M a year? The Jays averaged 4x as many 'local' viewers than any US team last year. The three most recent teams to sign TV deals (Arizona, Philadelphia and Texas) each received $50-60M per year, and per the most recent ratings I can find averaged approximately 70K, 110K and 115K per game respectively in 2016. The Jays clocked in at about 1M per game this year

That is, if you want to get technical, an extra 143,370,000 viewers that watched Blue Jay games compared to the highest of those three. Yet the Blue Jays TV deal ranges from 20-33% less than those teams.

(albeit, I do not blame ownership that much for the Edwin stuff - but if the Jays were spending to the tax I am sure they would've been more aggressive on Fowler)
 

Rick74*

Registered User
Oct 7, 2016
2,006
1
London, Ont

Rogers has money.

Lots and LOTS of money. Kind of what happens when you have basically shared monopoly over the internet/cable with bell that you overcharge in collusion. While at the same time using that money to buy up all the sports franchises in Toronto including the incredibly lucrative Toronto Maple Leafs.

Nope...no budgets, Rogers is just trying to field as cheap a team as possible that's able to sell beer. As such I see through their ******** and I'm done with the Jays. Thankfully because of the cap, this attitude can't carry over to the Leafs...yet.
 

doorman

Registered User
Nov 8, 2012
953
4
Thunder Bay
Rogers has money.

Lots and LOTS of money. Kind of what happens when you have basically shared monopoly over the internet/cable with bell that you overcharge in collusion. While at the same time using that money to buy up all the sports franchises in Toronto including the incredibly lucrative Toronto Maple Leafs.

Nope...no budgets, Rogers is just trying to field as cheap a team as possible that's able to sell beer. As such I see through their ******** and I'm done with the Jays. Thankfully because of the cap, this attitude can't carry over to the Leafs...yet.

Not sure how a 4r/80mil offer to EE and a 4/60mil to Fowler are considered cheap? Especially if you consider the reports of a 5th year being offered to EE are now out. there is a difference between smart and over paying stupidly, IMO.
 

Edo

The Mightiest Club
Jun 7, 2003
6,036
69
vancouver
wowhockey.com
Rogers has money.

Lots and LOTS of money. Kind of what happens when you have basically shared monopoly over the internet/cable with bell that you overcharge in collusion. While at the same time using that money to buy up all the sports franchises in Toronto including the incredibly lucrative Toronto Maple Leafs.

Nope...no budgets, Rogers is just trying to field as cheap a team as possible that's able to sell beer. As such I see through their ******** and I'm done with the Jays. Thankfully because of the cap, this attitude can't carry over to the Leafs...yet.

:laugh:

I'm not sure why fans always go this route with bashing ownership for being "cheap". They've been top 10 in the last 4 years for payroll. The Orioles ownership is "cheap". The Rays ownership is "cheap".

Toronto's is fine. Amazing actually.
 

metafour

Registered User
Apr 6, 2008
1,795
610
I'm not sure why fans always go this route with bashing ownership for being "cheap". They've been top 10 in the last 4 years for payroll. The Orioles ownership is "cheap". The Rays ownership is "cheap".

These people think that because Rogers is a mega-corporation, the baseball team's payroll must be unlimited. They don't realize that virtually every bottomless-payroll team in baseball is owned by either individuals or ownership groups who have heavy emotional interest in the sport. It is a little bit different when comparing a telecommunications giant of which the Blue Jays are literally just one of many subsidiaries, to a situation like the Tigers wherein the team is owned by an old billionaire who is about to die and just wants to see his team win at any cost. Rogers runs the Blue Jays like a business because that is what they are. Top Rogers execs don't go into work every morning and base their days around how the Blue Jays are doing. The Red Sox are owned by a sports investment firm which does nothing but own sports teams and other sports-related businesses. Get the point?

The whining is annoying because the Jays are clearly given enough resources to build a winning team. Would it be nice to have the biggest payroll in MLB? Sure, but its not reality, so who gives a ****? Don't try and pretend like we're the Tampa Bay Rays or something.
 

frost king

Registered User
Dec 11, 2013
458
1
These people think that because Rogers is a mega-corporation, the baseball team's payroll must be unlimited. They don't realize that virtually every bottomless-payroll team in baseball is owned by either individuals or ownership groups who have heavy emotional interest in the sport. It is a little bit different when comparing a telecommunications giant of which the Blue Jays are literally just one of many subsidiaries, to a situation like the Tigers wherein the team is owned by an old billionaire who is about to die and just wants to see his team win at any cost. Rogers runs the Blue Jays like a business because that is what they are. Top Rogers execs don't go into work every morning and base their days around how the Blue Jays are doing. The Red Sox are owned by a sports investment firm which does nothing but own sports teams and other sports-related businesses. Get the point?

The whining is annoying because the Jays are clearly given enough resources to build a winning team. Would it be nice to have the biggest payroll in MLB? Sure, but its not reality, so who gives a ****? Don't try and pretend like we're the Tampa Bay Rays or something.

Then Rogers should be at least paying a FAIR MARKET rate for the TV RIGHTS, so that it would give the team necessary capital to compete with the big teams. How do the Cardinals get a 1 Billion dollar deal for TV rights in a market that has 6 million people in the whole state? When the Jays have the same size market in Toronto alone, and the largest market in all of MLB because of Canada being a closed monopoly of 35 Million? Just read the article at FanGraphs. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/

The problem with Rogers, is that they have a self imposed cap. The Leafs were ragged upon in the same fashion, when they were one of the highest revenue generating teams and were not the highest spending team. When you lead the AL in attendance, have the highest rated local television broadcast in the MLB by about 10X. Canadian ratings not considered by Nielsen US. See the attached quote:

With the 2016 Major League Baseball season half way over, games on the regional sports networks that host them are knocking it out of the park in the ratings department for the sports prime time window, according to ratings numbers from Nielsen NLSN -0.05%.

Led by the 2015 World Series Champion Kansas City Royals (13.26 rating with an average of 119,000 households per game), 10 teams are rated the No. 1-rated primetime programming in their home markets since the start of the 2016 season , besting both broadcast and cable competition. Joining the Royals are the St. Louis Cardinals, Pittsburgh Pirates, Baltimore Orioles, Detroit Tigers, Boston Red Sox, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, San Francisco Giants, and Texas Rangers.

On top of that, when you go to the ball park, the only teams it costs more to go see are the Red Sox, Cubs and Yankees. To go see the Jays, it is the 4th most expensive ticket in MLB. So when it comes to Free Agency, we shop at the Dollar Store, while our competition continually shops at Tiffany. http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/mlb-ballparks-tickets/
 

Sens

Registered User
Jan 7, 2016
6,086
2,550
The club offered EE 4/80 with a 5th year option... it was the highest offer he got... why should the Jays bid against themselves?
 

Stringer Bell

Registered User
Dec 16, 2009
2,275
611
I get the impression that the Jays never had any intention of resigning EE. 4 years at 80 million is a great offer but I think they offered that at the beginning of free agency knowing that he wasn't going to take that right away. It was an offer to save face. No one, not even Jays management could have predicted that the market was going to dry up for EE the way it did. They offered him enough that it would look like they tried but not enough to compete with the best offers...or so they thought.
 

Stringer Bell

Registered User
Dec 16, 2009
2,275
611
The club offered EE 4/80 with a 5th year option... it was the highest offer he got... why should the Jays bid against themselves?

There's no way anyone thought that was going to be the highest offer EE was going to get. The Jays offered just enough to look like they tried to resign him but not enough to look more attractive than his expected offers. While it ended up being a competitive offer there is no way Jays management thought he was actually going to jump at that in the first week of free agency when everyone thought the rest of the offers were going to include much more. If we really wanted him we would have kept that offer on the table for longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->