Getty Images

AL MVP race shaping up much better for Mike Trout

30 Comments

A month ago, there were two very strong alternatives for voters to turn to in denying Mike Trout his second AL MVP award. Recent weeks, though, have not been so kind to Jose Altuve and Josh Donaldson.

Altuve, whose batting title seemed assured in mid-August, is hitting .195/.232/.390 over his last 19 games. His average has slipped from .366 on Aug. 20 to .340 now, and his OPS has dropped 50 points to .950. Meanwhile, his Astros have turned into major long shots in the wild card chase after a 4-8 start to September.

Donaldson was out of the lineup for a third straight game Wednesday and is undergoing an MRI on his right hip. Before taking a seat, Donaldson was hitless in his previous seven games, taking his OPS from .985 to .952.

Mookie Betts has overtaken both Altuve and Donaldson for second place in the AL in rWAR. Here’s the current breakdown:

9.3 – Trout
7.9 – Betts
7.5 – Altuve
6.6 – Donaldson
6.6 – Manny Machado
6.5 – Brian Dozier
6.5 – Kyle Seager

Betts might actually be the strongest alternative to Trout if the Astros fail to make the playoffs. Still, how are writers really going to justify voting for him? Trout has a higher average, a higher OBP by a whopping 80 points and a higher slugging percentage while playing the more difficult position and hitting in a much tougher ballpark for hitters than Betts does. Yes, one has done it in the pressure of the race, but does anyone believe Trout is ill-equipped to play meaningful September games? Does anyone really think the Red Sox are better off today with Betts than they would be with Trout?

It probably doesn’t hurt Trout, either, that David Ortiz, the AL’s best hitter this year, could cut into Betts’ support somewhat. Any division on the clear No. 1 alternative to Trout makes it more likely that he’ll get the award. If Altuve finishes up with a .350 average and the Astros sneak into the wild card, then he could be the favorite. If Donaldson or Betts goes on a major tear for a postseason team during the final two weeks, then that might just be enough. As is, though, it’s going to be difficult to deny Trout the hardware.

The Padres owners try to explain why they aren’t spending money

Getty Images
5 Comments

There was an interesting article in the San Diego Union-Tribune over the weekend about the Padres, their owners and their finances.

The article purports to be a rare look into the finances of a big league club. And yes, the owners opened their books, to a degree, to the writer of the story, talked about the team’s financial position, its debt and its approach to team payroll, past, present and future. The upshot: the team has had lots of debt, has had to do a lot of work to get out of that situation and now, with some restructuring out of the way, the club looks forward to spending more on players. Eventually. Like, maybe in 2020 or 2021.

On the one hand, yes, it’s actually got some good information in there! Some details about team finances you don’t often see. Which is totally cool as far as that goes. The problem is that the article doesn’t go nearly as far as it may seem and, in the end, is just a far more elaborate than usual excuse from a team about its failure to spend money.

The tell here comes from what is not mentioned as opposed to what is. For example, while it talks about how much is being spent on various things — baseball salaries, operating, marketing, etc. — nowhere does it talk about the owners’ own take. Rather, it leaves you with the impression that the owners haven’t seen a dime from the team in the several years that they’ve owned it. Color me extraordinarily skeptical about that. As we’ve seen with other clubs — most notably the Marlins, but most do it — broad categories such as “baseball operations” or “non baseball operations” often include substantial payments to owners in less-than-obvious line items. Payments to LLCs and partnerships for “consulting” or “management fees” or what have you. Do the Padres have similar expenditures? We can’t tell from this article, but it’s telling to me that they have spent about as much on front office/miscellaneous baseball ops stuff as player salaries over the past several years. A lot of that has been at building a strong minor league development system, but I’m guessing not all.

Similarly, there is an awfully large portion of the article aimed at telling the tale of the clubs’ massive debt and its restructuring. Yes, debt service can be a killer for liquidity, but it doesn’t really talk too much about the debt for its own sake. Such as the fact that (a) the current owners knew full-well of the debt they were inheriting from the previous owner, John Moores, when they bought the team; and (b) that by assuming the debt, their purchase price for the team was lowered, as it always will be in transactions that involve a lot of debt-assumption. The current owners have had the team since 2012. I don’t recall them telling the public then that there would be a near decade’s worth of swimming against the current of debt before they started paying for players. That’s never been in the season ticket brochure.

It’s also worth noting that, for as much as the debt restructuring is talked up in the story, it is saving the Padres only $8 million a year. They’ve been at least $60 million below the luxury tax threshold for several years now. It’s more than the club’s debt keeping them from spending money. It’s largely been a choice.

Again, none of which is to say that the article is not interesting in its own right. It certainly is. There is certainly more information here than one typically sees in an article about a team’s finances. But it is just partial information. Moreover, it seems to be aimed at justifying another year or two of non-contention to fans without satisfactorily explaining all of the many years of non-contention which preceded it. The Padres famously went all-in and spent some money on players in 2015. Why did that make sense then if this debt problem has been there all along? Why did they give Eric Hosmer over $100 million last year? The article wants to portray ownership as sober and responsible and prudent and use that to explain why the Padres have stunk on ice for a good long time, but it is not very convincing in communicating some consistent, rational thread from ownership.

That all of this comes at a time when clubs are being criticized for not spending money is no accident, I suspect. As such, I am choosing to read the piece for some interesting information it conveys while understanding that it has a pretty significant P.R. component to it as well.