Phoenix Newspapers sells stake in D-Backs

Phoenix Newspapers, parent company of The Arizona Republic, has sold its minority stake in the Arizona Diamondbacks to the team... Ken Kendrick said ownership has been looking to acquire smaller stakes in the team, and now owns about 66 percent of the team.

The Republic initially made a $5 million investment and two subsequent $1 million cash calls early on to help with the team's financial shortcomings. The $7 million stake was worth just more than 1 percent of the team, according to Kendrick. In 2002, before Kendrick's group began pumping more money in the team, the paper owned roughly 3.5 percent of the franchise.

about 1 year ago Jim McLennan 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not that it

affects things much, but I certainly prefer the idea of a separation between sports entities and the media that covers it. Having official broadcasters is one thing, but a newspaper or radio show should be free to cover a team without wondering if it hurts either’s bottomline, like the Chicago Tribune/Cubs situtation.

You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.

by soco on Nov 19, 2008 10:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Strengthening Positions

Ken Kendrick, the team’s managing partner, said the new ownership group since 2004 has been looking to acquire smaller stakes in the team to increase its position.

Heh, it’s nice to see an owner, who doesnt have $5M to pay Randy Johnson, has more than that available to strengthen his share position. Kendrick’s always insisted that earnings dont go into his “pockets” – but are they going towards his increasing “position” instead?

If Mr Kendrick wants to strengthen positions, second base might warrant higher priority.

by Diamondhacks on Nov 19, 2008 10:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is

the business of sports, plain and simple. I don’t really see the issue.

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands, Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon." -Kissing Suzy Kolber

by DbacksSkins on Nov 20, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The potential issue is

that Kendrick’s group has something on the order of $7M to throw at an incremental 1% of franchise share while choosing to earmark less than half that to retain Randy Johnson.

When Mr Kendrick talks about “our position”, he’s not talking about the fans interests or even the ballclub’s. He’s talking about him and his three buddies: Jensen,Chipman and Royer. It’d be nice if we had a Managing Partner who cared as much about our position relative to the Dodgers as his personal position relative to each incremental percentage point of franchise share – and the fact is there are plenty of owners who do.

It may be the business of sports, but it’s never plain and rarely simple.

by Diamondhacks on Nov 20, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not the same thing at all.

Unless you think Kendrick should be paying Johnson’s salary out of his own pocket. He is using [presumably] his own money to buy someone else’s shares. That money goes to the current owner of the shares, not into the club’s finances.

by Jim McLennan on Nov 20, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jim beat me to it.

It’s a clever argument, ‘hacks, but there’s no connection here. If you don’t think Kendrick should be able to consolidate ownership control over the franchise, then that’s one thing. If you think the club should expand its budget to re-sign Randy Johnson, that’s totally another — and that implies that you think Josh Byrnes would even agree that RJ’s worth his asking price. Simply because you have extra money doesn’t necessarily mean you should overpay. (See Byrnes, Eric)

Additionally, if you take issue with Kendrick buying more of the franchise for his partnership group, then I have a two-step suggestion:

1. Become millionaire.
2. Buy back franchise.

It’s the free market, and as I noted in my bloated, pedantic, and ultimately ignored post about the finances of the Dbacks, it’s not exactly as if the current ownership is rolling in dough coming in from the franchise. The club hauled in less than $6 million in pre-tax operating income in ’07, and I assume the number for ’08 was about the same, since ’06 was only slightly higher.

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands, Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon." -Kissing Suzy Kolber

by DbacksSkins on Nov 20, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless you think Kendrick should be paying Johnson’s salary out of his own pocket.

Not especially, Jim, although that’s essentially what owners and investors do, directly and indirectly. Indeed, Kendrick has indirectly financed a sizable share of Johnson’s salaries to date. But neither Randy’s future nor KK’s personal finances are foremost at issue here; it’s how player payroll, more generally, is budgeted and prioritized with respect to other business costs and alleged business revenues.

A couple weeks ago, we learned from Derrick Hall that the Diamondbacks employed more staff than any other team in baseball, and remain in MLB’s top five, after trimming their irresponsibly laden tree with 31 early Christmas “presents”. For a middle market team historically preaching efficiency and fiscal restraint, does anyone else find that the least bit incongruous?

Last week, Josh Byrnes was ignominiously forced to dance Ken Kendrick’s latest soft shoe, explaining that while the budget for compensatory draft picks has always been separate from publicly assigned player payroll, it now turns out all the buckets are “interrelated”. (Which has been my contention all along). So, with Johnson ($13M), Hudson, Ortiz and several other veterans potentially coming off the books, we have – ta da – $10M to spend! Nice round figure. We know the drill by now, courtesy of the long range planning princelings of cost certainty, who publicly pretended not to see most of this (ie draft picks & arb eligibles who need to be signed) coming.

by Diamondhacks on Nov 20, 2008 5:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

An about face by Hacks

Then, it was

Heh, it’s nice to see an owner, who doesnt have $5M to pay Randy Johnson, has more than that available to strengthen his share position.

Now it’s

But neither Randy’s future nor KK’s personal finances are foremost at issue here

The $10m figure is nothing to do with the draft picks – if that was factored in, the amount to spend would be close to zero. It comes, despite the $25m coming off the books, because of the cost-certainly at which you snipe – a number of players are due to receive significant salary increases in 2009.

Doug Davis: 08:$7.75M, 09:$8.75M
Eric Byrnes: 08:$6M, 09:$11M
Brandon Webb: 08:$5.5M, 09:$6.5M
Dan Haren: 08:$4M, 09:$7.5M
Chad Tracy: 08:$3.75M, 09:$4.75M
Jon Rauch: 08:$1.2M, 09:$2M
Chris Young: 08: $0.4M, 09:$1.75M
Justin Upton: 08:$1M, 09:$1.3M
Source

By my math, that’s almost $14 million extra already signed for next year, before we even look at any of the arbitration-eligible players, like Snyder, Jackson and Qualls, who will all get significant raises.. Add those, and even with the modest payroll increase as publicly stated, that $10m left for second-base, etc. seems about right.

by Jim McLennan on Nov 20, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's nothing contradictory

about my two remarks you quoted – at least not intentionally. The first tries to draw a general inconsistency from two recent, specific spending decisions; the second echoes this more general incongruity between the club’s fiscal alarmism and discretionary spending / budget redefinitions.

In terms of numbers, yours is a good rebuttal with useful specifics. (Great link, btw).

I counted up in excess of $30M salary dropping off the books in 2009, as follows:

Hudson 6.5M
Dunn 3.5M (4M this yr – 0.5M buyout)
Randy 6.5M ($10.5M this yr – 4M deferred bonus in ’09)
Cruz 1.9M
Lyon 3.1M
Clark 0.9M
Eckstein ??? (made 4.5M in 08, but I know we didnt pay that much. call it zero)
Ortiz 8.5M

My math isnt exactly right (I’m unclear how the various bonuses are treated, for example), and it’s possible someone like Cruz or Lyon could be signed, but that’s my baseline – upwards of thirty million.

Depending on what Snyder and CoJack gain in arbitration, the entire starting 2009 lineup (except 2nd base) stands to earn less than $25M total – and that includes the $11M to Eric. I certainly dont advocate adding payroll for it’s own sake, but would argue that the $25M core is a positive only to the extent that our lineup (and more generally, the team) is any good – and to the extent it provides financial flexibility to that end. Do you disagree with that?

I believe another 13.5M minimum drops off in 2010, if we dont sign Tracy or Davis, further accomodating some of the youngsters’ expected pay progression. Money owed pitchers & bench players also adds up and I’m not trying to ignore that aggregate cost – it’s just too fatiguing for me to itemize it all out right now.

One off observation: Geez, that Haren contract is miserable, isnt it? I didnt realize he cost quite that much (in addition to half our farm system). And that’s acknowledging his All Star level performance.

Reminiscing back to 2004-2005, I seem to recall that the long term debt was supposed to be a very small or non-factor by now. Am I a year early, or possibly suffering from selective recall?

by Diamondhacks on Nov 20, 2008 10:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just time

To lob up this link:
http://forum.diamondbacksbullpen.org/viewtopic.php?t=4692&
Which has a lot of interesting thoughts on the 2009 payroll. It hasn’t been updated since August, but I note shoe’s assessment "that still leaves the team about 8-10 million to spend on some kind of offensive upgrade, whether it be by signing a free agent, or taking on salary in a trade. "

by Jim McLennan on Nov 20, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One off observation: Geez, that Haren contract is miserable, isnt it? I didnt realize he cost quite that much (in addition to half our farm system). And that’s acknowledging his All Star level performance.

What? $12 million? Isn’t that what we just paid RJ last year?

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands, Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon." -Kissing Suzy Kolber

by DbacksSkins on Nov 21, 2008 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple points

1. Randy’s recently expired contract provides a darn good baseline on the Contract Misery Index : 240 IP, 15-13 W/L – $26M; even excluding 2006, he was hardly a bargain last year. ( Issue for another thread, but I think that’s a real pyschological barrier for this FO in not making a more credible 2009 offer).

2. Randy didnt cost half the farm (in addtn to the money). I admire the desire to win “now” mindset required to acquire Haren, and he’s been great, but on the cost side there’s still a very real chance this could be the worst deal in franchise history. Worse than Sexson. I guess I heard so much about Haren being ‘under control’, that $12M sounds like alot of money to me – on top of Cargo, Quentin, Smith, Eveland,etc…

by Diamondhacks on Nov 21, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Er...Quentin?

Not part of the Haren trade. He went to the White Sox. Sure, the A-ball player we got in return ended up as (a very minor) part of the trade, but I don’t think that was an independent trade. Cargo, Smith and Eveland have yet to show any real value at all, while Haren was an All-Star. So seems a bit early to label this – even potentially – as the worst deal in franchise history. It has some to go before we can even think about it beating Brad Penny for Matt Mantei.

by Jim McLennan on Nov 21, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is early,

so early I’d acknowledge this still has an outside chance to be a “good” trade. It’s clear Haren has provided more value than Richie Sexson ever did.

What’s unclear (and will be for a while considering the half dozen players we gave to Oakland are, on average, about as old as Max Scherzer), is the value of what we gave up. Smith and Eveland are each about as good as Doug Davis at the same age, and pitched better than the back of our 2008 rotation (Owings, Petit, Edgar). I’d say that’s “real value”. Cargo and Cunningham are 22 yrs old.

My understanding was Beane predicated the Haren deal on, among other things, our acquisition of Carter, eleven days earlier. If so, I wouldnt call that “a minor part” of the trade. How requisite the departure of Quentin was, is a different issue, but unless my facts are wrong, we ultimately lost Quentin in the pursuit of Dan Haren.

by Diamondhacks on Nov 21, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Outside chance"?

I guess that depends on how many All-Star caliber seasons you think Oakland will get out of Smith and Eveland – if Doug Davis is your touchstone, it appears the answer there will be “none.” So we’re already ahead there. Contrary to what you suggest, Petit, who is a year younger than both those pitchers, had a better year, when you take into account the massively more pitcher-friendly nature of Oakland’s park. ERA+: Petit = 106, Smith = 97, Eveland = 93.

I’m not convinced those two will ever be more than back of the rotation starters, who are not in short supply. While you can argue about the wisdom of extending Haren at the price paid, converting them into an elite pitcher is a good move. Never mind the worst trade in franchise history, the deal won’t even favor Oakland unless two or more of these players become among the best players in the league at their position. Because that is what we got in Haren.

We’ll see what happens with Gonzalez and Cunningham, but on the evidence of 2008, they’re some way from being major-league ready. Both, of course, are outfielders: where exactly were they going to play in Arizona? Hoarding players who are blocked makes no sense: again, you trade them for pieces you actually need and can use, which in our case meant a top-grade starting pitcher.

And as far as I’m aware, it’s sheer speculation that the absence of Carter would have broken the deal, but if you’ve got sources, I’d love to see them. I doubt it, in part because a minor-leaguer drafted out of high-school, with a career K:BB ratio of worse than 2:1 doesn’t really seem like the sort of player Billy Beane would set his heart on.

It’s clear that this trade was intended to help Arizona win now. If it does that – and there’s no doubt Haren was one of the best players on the team in 2008 – then it has to be considered a good trade, regardless of what the players we deal away might do down the road for other teams.

by Jim McLennan on Nov 22, 2008 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think most of us were willing to “overpay” somewhat for Haren, in terms of young, blocked talent, but the real question is (and will be), “Overpay by how much?” Even if one excludes Quentin from our accounting, Oakland still got 28 Win Shares last year out of our four “prospects” to Haren’s 20, and while that isnt intended to rebut the point of ’winning now" or suggest our team was worse with Haren, it does raise huge alarm bells about the long term equity of the trade.

2008, and to a lesser extent 2009, was when the Diamondbacks were supposed to enjoy a glaring advantage on the field, with Haren in his prime, coming off a 137+ season, versus a bunch of ‘not ready for prime time’ kids. I think we did gain some immediate advantage, and as I said earlier I’m on board with that general ‘win now’ philosophy, but the execution of that philosophy resulted in an advantage somewhat less than glaring, that stands to shrink and reverse course hereon out, on the rather tame assumption that some of these kids will further progress while Danny’s about as good as he’s gonna get.

Doug Davis may not be an All Star, but he was good enough to be the #2 on Byrnes’ only playoff team, something Haren, for all his ASG starts, has yet to accomplish. Of course, I’m not implying Davis is as good as Haren straight up, but merely that Davis (and by extension, guys like Smith and Eveland) have significant value in their own rights, no matter your need to paint the latter pair of 25 yr olds as little more than fungible bums.

Smith and Eveland both enjoyed oustanding first halves in their MLB rotational debuts, each earning more Win Shares than Petit, Edgar, Owings and Scherzer combined, and together as many (19) as Randy Johnson(12) and Davis(7) – at an effective $20M annual discount. Doesnt make ‘em Dan Haren, but I’d suggest the forward gap between them and someone like Max Scherzer may be more a trickle than a gulf.

We’re both speculating on Quentin – we can put his departure in any compartment you want, but assuming Carter/Quentin was independent of Haren only makes Josh look worse, all the moreso when you downgrade Carter. At least under my scenario, Josh has a compelling endgame (Haren) to theoretically “justify” that earlier trade. In either case, it’s becoming increasingly clear the Dbacks gave up a bushel of ascendant talent to win 84 games to date.

…Petit, who is a year younger than [Smith or Eveland], had a better year…

Maybe, if he pitched more often than Mark Grace or Augie Ojeda, but Yooz earned as many 2008 Win Shares(3) as the “some way from being major league ready” Cargo did… just with his glove :-)

by Diamondhacks on Nov 22, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, the folly of win shares

Especially when you try to add them up across a number of players to evaluate trades. The truth is almost certainly that none of the players we sent to Oakland would have played for Arizona this season. Therefore, their “Win Shares” total for us was zero. They were, effectively, entirely worthless for the Diamondbacks in 2008. That another team found value from them, and was able to provide value to us too, is surely the epitome of a trade that is good for both sides, rather than “could be the worst deal in franchise history.”

For these players were converted into someone who could, and did, play a significant part in keeping the team in contention until almost the very end of the season. We may not have made the playoffs with Haren, but without him, we would have been a great deal further out of contention. The notion that Haren’s 16-8, 3.33 ERA was in any way comparable to the 12-11, 4.25 record posted by Davis last year is perhaps the most amusing thing I’ve read this week.

Even that said, I think I will wait and see before proclaiming Smith and Eveland as the next coming of…er, Doug Davis. Micah Owings had a significantly better campaign than either of them in his rookie season – 150 IP, 109+ ERA – but regressed sharply this year to the point he was dumped a part-payment for a rental. Neither Smith nor Eveland could even complete this season without being ruthlessly exposed, combining to go 4-12 with a 5.55 ERA after the All-Star break.

This was a classic many for one trade: one proven commodity being exchanged for a lot of potential, that may or may not work out down the road. [Smith wasn’t even in our top ten propsects, according to BA, at the time of the deal] With the benefit of hindsight, things may appear otherwise, but getting a young, cheap, cost-controlled pitcher like Haren, who then delivers or even surpasses his promise… What’s not to like, really?

by Jim McLennan on Nov 22, 2008 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What's not to like?

The very real prospect of elevating Dan Haren as the most expensive commodity in franchise history. For starters, Kendrick’s paying him him $44M. Several of the half dozen youngsters we sacrificed on the altar of Danny also appear poised to tackle starting MLB positions “before their time”. I’ve gone out of my way to avoid disparaging Haren – he’s been great so far – and you’re quite right his status as “Most Expensive Dback Ever” hasnt happened yet. It may never happen. ( Perhaps I’ll feel better if we slap Smith and Cargo around Coors next summer, but as of today, I’m on record as not liking the early returns on those we gave up on.)

Ah the folly of win shares. Especially when you try to add them up across a number of players to evaluate trades.

Summing Eveland(9) and Smith (10) to claim comparable value to Haren (20) would be folly, but of course I never did that, instead comparing those pitchers and their Win Shares to a like number(Davis and Randy), or greater number, of Diamondback counterparts. The 28 aggregate win shares we gave to Oakland wasnt “intended to…suggest our team was worse with Haren…” this year. How can I be clearer that relative 2008 on field performance isnt the point of contention here?

The truth is almost certainly that none of the players we sent to Oakland would have played for Arizona this season.

Sure, but is that because they werent good enough to play or because the Diamondbacks failed to recognize, and/or properly develop, their talents? In terms of analyzing the trade and evaluating FO performance, it seems to me the pertinent question isnt “would” they have started for Arizona, so much as “could” they have started/contributed in Arizona – and at what relative cost? You’re arguing these transferees are essentially worthless here because they didnt play, but their demonstrated MLB performance strongly suggests, to me anyway, that Eveland and Smith could have added significant value to Arizona’s back end – at virtually no expense of money or addtl prospects.

We may not have made the playoffs with Haren, but without him, we would have been a great deal further out of contention.

If you’re comparing Haren with the absence of Haren in a vacuum, sure. But that’s not the real-world trade off, is it? For example, instead of going after Haren, what if we started a rotation of Webb, Davis, Johnson, Smith & Eveland, and filled in with the usual suspects as any of the top five faltered, contracted cancer, etc. The rotation’s admittedly weaker, but I dont think alarmingly so, especially if Eveland & Smith are worked less than they were in Oakland. More significantly, you retain Cargo, Cunningham, Anderson, & Carter/Quentin – and $40-44M – to target a desperately needed upgrade on the offensive side. Total hindsight, of course, and I’ve said I admire the risk-taking philosophy of ‘win now’ – I’m just trying to evaluate application and execution here.

The notion that Haren’s 16-8, 3.33 ERA was in any way comparable to the 12-11, 4.25 record posted by Davis last year is perhaps the most amusing thing I’ve read this week.

Splendid! Fair exchange for your hilarious discounting of MLB-average starters who throw 150+ innings. Perhaps you missed this gem as you were doubled over, teary -eyed:

“Of course, I’m not implying Davis is as good as Haren straight up…”

I was trying to advance that the practical difference between Haren and Davis (who was 13-12 in ’07, btw) in terms of winning and reaching the playoffs, may be less than supposed and that in a perfect or logical world that real difference should be reflected in a responsible, corresponding upgrade of cost – not a panicky fire sale of alarming quantity and potential – on top of $44M.

I think I will wait and see before proclaiming Smith and Eveland as the next coming of…er, Doug Davis.

Respectable position. I’ll wait n see before proclaiming Haren the next Randy Johnson, cuz that may be more in line with what we end up paying for him.

“a cheap, cost-controlled pitcher like Haren”

still chuckling over that. We’ll just have to wait it out and hope Haren continues to justify his sharply increasing salary along with the virtually sure to rise opportunity costs of all the personnel losses.

by Diamondhacks on Nov 22, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs