About Halladay and Team Ownership...

by elijahdukes on Dec 7, 2009 9:53 PM EST Comment 16 comments

The prospect of picking up Halladay for only one "rental" season sounds unappealing, and most of his suitors are obviously going to attempt to sign him to some sort of meaningful extension. This would seem to not apply to the Rays, which according to DRB are looking at winning in 2010 with Doc in the rotation. We couldn't offer him a reasonable extension compared to what he could be making, as the saying goes, but what if we made an unprecedented offer of partial team ownership along with a fair (but team-friendly) salary? Doc lives in the TB area and he has made it clear that he prefers training in FL, so he probably likes to play in Florida. Team ownership would incentivize performance and make a big splash, not to mention that if Doc is successful over a 4 year period, for example, he would receive a sizeable return on investment - right now, attendance can pretty much only improve, and with Doc we'd be looking at a cost-controlled rotation of Halladay/Shields/Niemann/Price/Davis or Hellickson, with depth in the minors to spare. If Doc would agree to a 3-year + option extension for say, $35 million, plus some ownership, why not?

0 recs | Comment 16 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Would be best rotation in baseball

I really hope we get him

Who do we want? Roy Halladay! When do we want him? NOW

by joeybw on Dec 7, 2009 10:05 PM EST reply actions

It's an interesting idea. No doubt.

The stake would have to be fairly small since it will last into perpetuity or until he sells his stake. Don’t know if Stu would do it. If he’s smart Halladay might be interested in this.

by RaysTheRoof on Dec 7, 2009 10:09 PM EST reply actions

I'd worry about a Roger Dorn situation when he's 42.

by rglass44 on Dec 7, 2009 10:17 PM EST reply actions

Come on Dorn, get in front of the damn ball! Don't give me this "olé" bullshit!

by RaysTheRoof on Dec 7, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions

3yr/$35 million?

Halladay will be looking at $15 million AT A MINIMUM per season, and probably over 5 seasons.

by td32 on Dec 7, 2009 10:38 PM EST reply actions

did you not read the whole ownership stake thing? Depending on the % given

that could make the deal far more valuable and might be something Halladay is interested in.

by RaysTheRoof on Dec 7, 2009 10:40 PM EST up reply actions

has this ever happened?

is it legal in the mlb CBA?

by davidsmarch on Dec 7, 2009 10:39 PM EST reply actions

Don't see why it wouldn't be. He'd only own a small minority

by RaysTheRoof on Dec 7, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

Rotation

The rotation listed in the article does not include Garza. Wouldn’t Davis be the one most coveted by the Jays and not Garza?

by Go Rays! on Dec 7, 2009 10:51 PM EST reply actions

About that

I’m assuming that the Rays will have to trade Garza prior to Arb-2, and possibly even just after this season. He’s not going to come cheap and he is only going to get better with time, but unfortunately he may be more valuable as a trade chip than as one of the guys in the staff making possibly 6 MM + per season. We have good depth in A+/AA ball and I think we’ll have to let Garza go for financial reasons. Obviously, if this fantasy extension were signed, it would be a little crippling to the Rays budget and we’d certainly have to allocate a little bit less money for the other SP, don’t you think?

By the way, the 35 mil / 3 years was supposed to also include something like a 15 mil option. That brings the total value to 50 mil over 4 years. Now, say we offer him a .5% stake, as CubFan suggests. That’s worth 16 mil now, which brings the total value to 66 mil, with 16 mil being a “sunk cost.” On the other hand, if the Rays can increase ticket receipts (perhaps as a result of a world championship with Doc), that stake is certainly going to be worth more by the time his contract is up. Of course, part of the contract would have to include a stipulation that Doc must either sell his stake or resign at the end, for it would be a classic conflict of interest, but if Halladay/Shields/Price/Niemann/Davis/Hellickson/Garza can bring us a WS then perhaps we may see attendance reach (shocking!) LEAGUE AVERAGE by the time he’s done. Let’s say 30 K per game. Right now we’re looking at 23800, so this would represent a 6200*81*$40 average receipt per ticket = about 20 mil. increase. At the same time, other revenue streams could also increase, and even if they continue at their current rates, we’re still looking at maybe 5 – 10 mil increases just from marketing alone. Point being, Halladay’s performance and leadership will incentivize his play and make everybody happier/richer/more willing to dish out money for Gil Meche.

by elijahdukes on Dec 8, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Say the Rays are worth $320 mil (per Forbes)

a .5% ownership stake with the 3/35 deal, is definitely around market value.

the ghost of stokes, camp, lugo strikes TB-sept 2009

by CubFanRaysaddict on Dec 8, 2009 1:32 AM EST reply actions

Perhaps you should check your math

A .5% stake in a $320 MM asset is worth $1.6MM. Meaning an added $533 K per year on Halladay’s 3 year contract. Meaning next to nothing.

Market value would require more like a 10% stake, or $10MM per year, to start to approach posible market value for Halladay on top of your projected contract.

Plus I think the concept may very well be a non-starter. As hinted above, it’s very possible active players are precluded from team ownership.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Dec 10, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions