Ricketts' List of GM Candidates (Chicago Tribune)

[Dallas Green]

Worst of all, just look at him.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d9/NED_COLLETTI.jpg/200px-NED_COLLETTI.jpg

 

Do you have any pictures of him that aren't distorted by a funhouse mirror?

 

I don't want anyone making big decisions who decides to wear that thing on his head

[Clem Fandango]

Worst of all, just look at him.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d9/NED_COLLETTI.jpg/200px-NED_COLLETTI.jpg

 

Do you have any pictures of him that aren't distorted by a funhouse mirror?

 

I don't want anyone making big decisions who decides to wear that thing on his head

 

He looks like he should be propped up by Jonathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy

[17 Seconds]

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/17979/weekend_at_bernies_17979.jpg

[Scotti]

Of course, you did just pull all those #s out of your ass. (Except the Forbes valuation)

 

You believe that Oakland will become the 6th most valuable franchise in baseball behind only 4 teams from the biggest markets in baseball and a team that owns all of New England???

 

At what point did I say anything about other teams not increasing in value? In ten years the Cubs could be worth 1.75-2.0 billion but that doesn't mean they will leapfrog the Yankees into first--the Yankees will increase as well. Just not as much.

 

Ownership of virtually any MLB team is a good/great investment. Those teams have, and will, increase as well. But when the A's get a new stadium/city they will be valued at a much greater amount then the A's are currently. The A's are a good, solid organisation--they just need a good stadium and, ideally, a move to San Jose (who would love to have them). Without that, they are still undervalued.

 

As such, yes, the A's should leapfrog over teams like the Jays, KC, CLE, the Reds, MIL, DET, AZ, SD, BALT, the Gnats, SEA, HOU, ATL, MIN and perhaps several others. Those teams either got their new parks already (that's the sole reason some are valued higher now) or they just aren't going to get one (KC). Tampa looks to leapfrog up the ranks if and when they get their new park as well.

 

Miami has already added 116M in value from where they were before the long drawn out process down there started (Dec 2007) and they won't play a game in that park until 2012. That's 41% increase and they haven't played a game (much less reported financials). If the Marlins can grow 41% over a three-year period and two seasons ahead of actually playing a game (2011 valuation is for 2010 season) then, yeah, OAK can double its valuation after building a good park and getting out of a horrible park.

 

You think a purchase of a 4% share of the franchise wouldn't take into account any progress made on the stadium and/or relocation?

 

Not unless the deal was imminent, no. It is valued at what it is valued at. That is a similar reason that Sternberg bought the Rays... He got in when it was undervalued. He didn't pay the "When Tampa Gets A New Ballpark" price he paid the "This Ballpark Sucks Hairy Nuts" price.

 

In the case of the A's, they are undervalued because they have no decent stadium deal and they share the market with the Giants:

 

"Oakland A's play in one of Major League Baseball's wealthiest regions but get less than $7 million a season from premium seating at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum"

 

There are way too many vagaries for an investor to overpay the current valuation. Does the team move or stay? What does the new place look like and what are the particulars in the contract?

 

Regardless, my guess would be that there are stipulations about to whom and when he can sell those shares. Perhaps he can only sell back to the majority owner at market value. It makes sense for the owner. It keeps the GM interested in staying on because the shares have more value to the GM if he keeps them long term. That is just a guess though but I can't see the owner not putting some strings on this. Of course the biggest strings are those attached to his long-term contract.

 

Few people ever get the opportunity to buy in to a MLB team--it's a great, stable growth investment--the A's have doubled in 9 years and most teams have grown similarly--and there are very few of that type of investment these days. One of the reasons that MLB continues to grow is because 90% of the ballparks out there are a good experience and worth the ticket price. That is NOT true of Oakland.

 

Any team that wanted to get Beane's services would have to cover the difference between what he got for the shares (basically the Forbes valuation which does NOT take any future deal into account unless it is "imminent") and what the future growth that he has to give up because he cannot own shares in a different club. The Cubs could sell him shares of the Cubs but then they would be out of that future growth themselves (paying the difference but in a different way).

 

Another issue for Beane is that ownership take in profits over and above the value of the shares increasing (even while the team is struggling). The lower he keeps payroll, the higher those profits are. So, he has an investment (4% that has increased 66% in since he signed the deal and through a recession) that brings in cash in profits every year as long as he handles the budget appropriately. He also doesn't have to participate in cash calls (when there is a negative balance instead of a profit). That is a very valuable asset to have--all gain with no loss.

 

From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't sell off that type of security for cash unless I knew I could reinvest my money into a similarly secure situation with similarly outstanding benefits. The actual value to Beane (who has much more control over the worth of the team--and thus his own shares) is likely greater than any run-of-the-mill minority partner. Beane has much greater control over player expenses than any other 4% partner ever could (and, as I said, Beane is exempt from cash calls as well). The Cubs would have to pay dearly to buy him out of that deal IF he were a FA. He isn't. To me Beane doesn't belong in this thread (other than to say that Beane doesn't belong in this thread).

 

Go Friedman!

[Scotti]

Oh dear lord. This is about to get amusing. Maybe.

 

Doubtful.

[Scotti]

Of course, you did just pull all those #s out of your ass. (Except the Forbes valuation)

 

Uh, you mean like the value of OAK doubling over the last 9 years? That's just fact. Sure Beane can sell at the current value but he can't replace that kind of secure growth during a very long recession in the market or in real estate.

 

If a smart investor owned 4% of the A's in this market he/she would NOT sell it at face value.

 

If the A's are going to soon be valued at 616M at minimum (Holy [expletive] they are not), then why would Beane only make 12M from the sale of his shares?

 

I'm sure that nine years ago you would have said that the idea of the A's valuation doubling--from 157M to 307M--in nine years through the worst recession in decades and without a new stadium deal was goofy as well. But it happened. Even while the team has sucked on the field for five straight years. So you don't see the A's being worth 600M after it settles into a new stadium with huge increases in stadium revenues (from the worst in baseball to the newest stadium). No biggie. I'm not concerned.

 

Beane has 4% ownership and the team is valued at over 300M. That valuation does not take into consideration the fact that it is, in fact, an under-valued commodity. That would be silly. But that doesn't mean that the valuation isn't, in fact, undervalued. Forbes does not include stadium deals until they are "imminent." I have zero doubt that a deal will be made for the A's (and one for the Cubs and one for the Rays). When each of those goes down the valuation will increase considerably (and so will the value in sale of any shares).

 

IIRC Forbes valuation was within about 3% of the sales price the last time the team was sold so they did a good job there. I don't doubt that they have this pegged in terms of sale price/valuation as it stands but, as I said, the A's will eventually get a deal. When they do their value will go up. The fact that they are a MLB team means they are a great bet to go up anyway but for now they "tread water" with 100% gains in 9 years.

[Scotti]

Olney/Insider:

 

Andrew Friedman faces a tough decision

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=6881791&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d6881791

[Guest]

Scotti,

 

The current valuation of the franchise takes into account people's best guess as to the likelihood of the A's getting into a new stadium deal and what the terms of that deal would look like. There's always projection of future value built into the valuation of any asset. It's why Apple is the highest valued company even though their sales are far lower than those of other companies.

 

Now, obviously once the deal would actually happen, it changes things. But buying Beane out of his ownership wouldn't need to include future projection on top of the current value. The current value already includes projection of future value. If Beane is more confident of a stadium deal getting done than those who are valuing the team, then he'd have a tough decision to accept the buyout to move to another team.

 

In other words...he may value his stake differently than others. But the Cubs or any other team that would want his services wouldn't need to worry about that at all. Especially since it would be up to Beane to divest himself of that ownership before making the move and the Cubs wouldn't be on the hook for that money at all.

[Clem Fandango]

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/17979/weekend_at_bernies_17979.jpg

 

An uncanny carbon copy

[idakepps]

Do people know Friedman is from Houston and that his father was in the running to buy the team? I'd say if he goes anywhere it'll be Houston and his father will be given a share of the team as a lure.

 

Cashman has flatly said he won't be in the running for the job. He could be BSing, I guess, and I hope he is...because I want him. Maybe he's been bidding his time to let his contract run out and he'll bolt at the first chance. People should really be prepared for that not being the case though.

 

Which leaves us with Byrnes or Cherington on this dumb Tribune list that's not even "Rickett's List." Hahn doesn't fit Rickett's criteria at all. Byrnes strikes me as a retread, and only in the discussion because he has ties to the family. Cherington just happens to be next in line at the Red Sox fanboy turnstyle.

 

Ricketts has said he wants someone with experience winning. Why are all these names being thrown around young flavor of the month types? Who's to say Terry Ryan won't be in the mix? Or how about Gerry Hunsicker, who has tons of experience as a GM and basically took Friedman under his wing and showed him the ropes.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Worst of all, just look at him.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d9/NED_COLLETTI.jpg/200px-NED_COLLETTI.jpg

 

Do you have any pictures of him that aren't distorted by a funhouse mirror?

 

You mean any in which he doesn't look like he's mentally undressing a 13 year old girl?

[dew1679666265]

Do people know Friedman is from Houston and that his father was in the running to buy the team? I'd say if he goes anywhere it'll be Houston and his father will be given a share of the team as a lure.

 

Most people on here are aware of that, I believe, but the thinking is that Friedman might prefer an organization that will spend whatever money is necessary to win (both at the major league level and at the amateur level) and has more resources than almost anyone else in baseball over a team whose only real draw is that it's located where Friedman was born.

 

Doesn't mean that will happen - he could stay in Tampa for all we know - but I think it's a very legitimate possibility.

[SouthSideRyan]

OH [expletive] YOU SITE. I just wrote a really long reply to Scotti and it ate it all. I'll get to this later.

[SouthSideRyan]

Houston might be the worst organization in baseball. And they stand to get worse when the new owner comes in.

[davearm2]

The notion that the Cubs will have to bribe Beane or anyone else to take their GM job is just goofball. Interest in this opening is going to be staggering. The Cubs will have their pick of just about whoever they want.

 

If Beane would rather own 4% of the Oakland freaking A's than come be the GM of an iconic big-market franchise with huge resources and virtually unlimited potential to succeed, then fine. Scratch him off the list.

 

Yeah, just forget the fact that the A's have him under contract... For three more years. He's Billy Freakin' Beane and no contract can hold him.

See now that's a legitimate obstacle. The A's would have to grant permission for Beane to interview, and be willing to release him from his deal.

 

The ownership share, not really. If Beane wants the challenge/opportunity available in Chicago, then the ownership share should be a non-issue.

[YearofDaCubs]

Am I the only one that would think signing Cashman would be a failure? The Yankees made some solid moves but nothing to write home about when you factor in the amount of money they spent on free agents year per year. They've also had a lot of bust free agents and how is their minor league system doing these days?

[Banedon]

OH [expletive] YOU SITE. I just wrote a really long reply to Scotti and it ate it all. I'll get to this later.

 

Yeah, site had a little hiccup there. I blame tapatalk.

[Guest]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/6883564/jon-greenberg-chicago-cubs-gm-tom-ricketts-first-big-baseball-decision

 

Judging by Ricketts' interview on Friday, his previous hire on the baseball side (Ari Kaplan) and by talking with a few of his friends and associates in the past year, I'm convinced the Cubs will be run by a forward-thinking general manager with a strong emphasis on advanced statistics, and reliance on cheap, farm system labor. So you can basically cross off the old-guard candidates.

 

Hendry's fate was basically sealed in late May 2010 when Ricketts hired Kaplan, an industry expert, to be the team's statistical analyst manager.

 

That was Ricketts' only known entrée in the baseball operations department, which signaled a clear change of philosophy in the traditionalist scout-heavy Hendry era. I'm guessing Kaplan, who, like others of his ilk, has only talked informally to reporters, will be one of the informal advisors Ricketts turns to in the coming weeks. He's worked for two-thirds of the teams in baseball, so he knows the candidates. You have to wonder if he's been scouting the scouts already.

 

Andrew Friedman, the 34-year-old executive vice president of baseball operations for the Tampa Bay Rays is my (and most people's) prospective frontrunner for this job, based on the criteria Ricketts talked about in his news conference Friday.

 

Friedman, like Ricketts, comes from a financial background. After college, Friedman was an analyst for Bear Stearns and a private equity firm before joining the Rays in his mid-20s, working for fellow Wall Street whizzes Stuart Sternberg and Matthew Silverman.

 

By 28, Friedman was running baseball operations for the club. If he joins the Cubs, get used to hearing the word "arbitrage."

 

It's unfair to simply lump Friedman in with the statheads. Like most people in his former line of work, he's more a risk-taker with research. He left behind a lucrative career and refused to sign a contract when he started working with the Rays. So he knows his own value.

 

Ricketts made his own money in the retail corporate bond market, and of course, the family fortune that bought the team came from taking TD Ameritrade public.

 

I think the personalities would mesh as well, not a small factor considering the awkward meshing between the new and old employees of the Cubs' front office.

 

Friedman, though good with the media, was purposely circumspect about the inner workings of the Rays in Jonah Keri's book on the organization, "The Extra 2%," and he tends to avoid the limelight -- qualities Ricketts wants in his team. (Todd Ricketts' "Undercover Boss" appearance notwithstanding.)

 

Keri wrote: "Friedman was not only baseball's first Wall Street-trained GM but the first to describe the concept of arbitrage in baseball while ejecting a stream of tobacco juice from his mouth."

 

Friedman also has a bit of street cred as an athlete, having played baseball at Tulane.

[SouthSideRyan]

Short answers to Scotti:

 

-Past Performance Is Not Indicative of Future Results

-You must think the Ricketts family got a steal on the Cubs and are true financial geniuses

-You're essentially saying you know the A's financial situation better than Forbes and that the A's owners are utter buffoons for giving up a 4% share in the greatest investment vehicle ever created.

Edited August 22, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[dew1679666265]

Am I the only one that would think signing Cashman would be a failure? The Yankees made some solid moves but nothing to write home about when you factor in the amount of money they spent on free agents year per year. They've also had a lot of bust free agents and how is their minor league system doing these days?

 

You have to factor into any evaluation of Cashman the fact that the Steinbrenners (both George and Hank) have forced some pretty ill-advised signings on him. Because of that he's a little harder than some others to evaluate, but he has spoken of a commitment to building through the farm in the past few years and seems to value the farm system and developing from within more than the Steinbrenners do.

 

Because of the questions surrounding what Cashman would do out from under the influence of the Steinbrenners, however, I prefer Friedman to him.

[XZero771679666304]

Am I the only one that would think signing Cashman would be a failure? The Yankees made some solid moves but nothing to write home about when you factor in the amount of money they spent on free agents year per year. They've also had a lot of bust free agents and how is their minor league system doing these days?

 

You have to factor into any evaluation of Cashman the fact that the Steinbrenners (both George and Hank) have forced some pretty ill-advised signings on him. Because of that he's a little harder than some others to evaluate, but he has spoken of a commitment to building through the farm in the past few years and seems to value the farm system and developing from within more than the Steinbrenners do.

 

Because of the questions surrounding what Cashman would do out from under the influence of the Steinbrenners, however, I prefer Friedman to him.

 

Yeah, it's hard to say just what Cashman would have done free of meddling from above. But because he has essentially been a puppet of the Steinbrenners, he is sort of an unknown quantity.

[Exile on Waveland]

Hahn: He's bright, overly educated and more than qualified to take the next step — and the 40-year-old from Winnetka grew up a Cubs fan. Ricketts knows all this, of course, and thinks highly of him, according to one baseball source. Hahn's only drawback would be that he hasn't sat in the big chair. But don't dismiss him.

Overly educated? What the hell does that mean? More anti-intellectual garbage from "baseball men"? I'd hope that a GM of our team held an advanced degree or at least a bachelor's degree (in finance, business, economics, etc.) from a top tier university.

 

Yeah, I could hardly read the rest of that article after the "overly educated" statement. He's too smart to be a GM? Uh, OK.

 

 

 

Also, even with their dream move to San Jose, I struggle envisioning the A's becoming a more valuable franchise than the Giants.

[Guest]

Hahn: He's bright, overly educated and more than qualified to take the next step — and the 40-year-old from Winnetka grew up a Cubs fan. Ricketts knows all this, of course, and thinks highly of him, according to one baseball source. Hahn's only drawback would be that he hasn't sat in the big chair. But don't dismiss him.

Overly educated? What the hell does that mean? More anti-intellectual garbage from "baseball men"? I'd hope that a GM of our team held an advanced degree or at least a bachelor's degree (in finance, business, economics, etc.) from a top tier university.

 

Yeah, I could hardly read the rest of that article after the "overly educated" statement. He's too smart to be a GM? Uh, OK.

 

 

 

Also, even with their dream move to San Jose, I struggle envisioning the A's becoming a more valuable franchise than the Giants.

 

 

I think you guys are taking his use of the word "overly" a bit too literally.

[Exile on Waveland]

Hahn: He's bright, overly educated and more than qualified to take the next step — and the 40-year-old from Winnetka grew up a Cubs fan. Ricketts knows all this, of course, and thinks highly of him, according to one baseball source. Hahn's only drawback would be that he hasn't sat in the big chair. But don't dismiss him.

Overly educated? What the hell does that mean? More anti-intellectual garbage from "baseball men"? I'd hope that a GM of our team held an advanced degree or at least a bachelor's degree (in finance, business, economics, etc.) from a top tier university.

 

Yeah, I could hardly read the rest of that article after the "overly educated" statement. He's too smart to be a GM? Uh, OK.

 

 

 

Also, even with their dream move to San Jose, I struggle envisioning the A's becoming a more valuable franchise than the Giants.

 

 

I think you guys are taking his use of the word "overly" a bit too literally.

 

Sure . . . but it wasn't from a post on a message board, it was from a journalist from one of the nation's major newspapers.

[SouthSideRyan]

He wasn't using it to degrade him.