Angels Out on Lester

[Guest]

This is the first reponse that is not ridiculous.

 

Why is the luxury tax based on annual average value instead of the value in every given year? If that's the case then why not sign guys to a long-term contract at fewer $$$ per year? To me, it still makes sense to have the flexibility rather than locking into a shitty contract for more years. That long contract will hamstring a team forever. For the same amount of $$$ I would rather get it over and done with.

 

 

It's cute to say: "Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125?" but that's not the argument.

 

What if you can get them for 3/$100?

 

The luxury tax is designed to be a minor nuisance to teams that are only over for one or two years in a row, but severely punish teams that are over the threshold for multiple straight years. The luxury tax rules punish repeat offenders with progressively escaalting tax rates, and progressively reducing the share of money that high payroll teams receive from MLB revenue sharing pools for every consecutive year over the cutoff. However, if a team dips below the threshold even for just one year, the tax rates reset back to the minimum.

 

If the tax were based on individual year salaries, teams could easily game their contracts to avoid going over the luxury tax theshold in multiple consecutive years by, for example, alternating between paying their star some insanely high value one year (like $50M) then league minimum the next year to help bring the team's payroll below the threshold and reset the cap.

Edited December 8, 2014 by ScottLux

[ukyah]

This is the first reponse that is not ridiculous.

 

Why is the luxury tax based on annual average value instead of the value in every given year? If that's the case then why not sign guys to a long-term contract at fewer $$$ per year? To me, it still makes sense to have the flexibility rather than locking into a shitty contract for more years. That long contract will hamstring a team forever. For the same amount of $$$ I would rather get it over and done with.

 

 

It's cute to say: "Why pay someone for 3 /120 when you can get them for 5/125?" but that's not the argument.

 

What if you can get them for 3/$100?

 

 

i don't think i was being cute, and i'm not particularly fond of that characterization.. what you're suggesting doesn't make mathematical or financial sense. the facts are that the going rate for top talent is around 18-20 million per year right now, and elite is around 30-35. why would you pay someone who would sign for 20 million per year for five years, to a contract that would pay them 33.3 million per year? just because it's 2 years less? why not just sign them for the going rate and if you get five years production then great, but if not then you could release them? the dollars are the same. also, you totally **** yourself salary cap wise.

[nando714]

Lester will make his decision in less that 24 hrs

My guess is cubs

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

Lester will make his decision in less that 24 hrs

My guess is cubs

Im sure it will be either the Cubs or Red Sox.

[m0nkey]

No one else ever mentioned the angels being interested, huh. Shocker

[Erstad Grit]

Man, if the Dodgers sign him they might have the best modern rotation ever. 

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

Jon Lester‘s decision about a new team could swing the balance of the entire offseason, so let’s get to the latest updates on the free agent southpaw…

• Lester’s camp is waiting to see if a club will up its offer to the $150MM level and/or include a seventh year, whether guaranteed or through a vesting option, per a report from Sean McAdam of CSNNE.com. The bidding is believed to be sitting around $140MM over six years at present, McAdam adds.

[Guest]

Man, if the Dodgers sign him they might have the best modern rotation ever. 

For some reason building superstar rotations never seems to work out. See: the Tigers last year with 3 Cy Young Winners, or the 2011 Phillies.

[Erstad Grit]

For some reason building superstar rotations never seems to work out. See: the Tigers last year with 3 Cy Young Winners, or the 2011 Phillies.

 

A micro version worked pretty well for the 2001 DBacks. 

Edited December 8, 2014 by Erstad Grit

[DowningRules]

Sounds like agent chicanery to me.  False bidding war.

 

 

Jon Lester‘s decision about a new team could swing the balance of the entire offseason, so let’s get to the latest updates on the free agent southpaw…

• Lester’s camp is waiting to see if a club will up its offer to the $150MM level and/or include a seventh year, whether guaranteed or through a vesting option, per a report from Sean McAdam of CSNNE.com. The bidding is believed to be sitting around $140MM over six years at present, McAdam adds.

 

[Angel Oracle]

I know that Grienke was two years younger when signing his deal than Lester will be.

But otherwise, how does Lester rate nothing more than what Grienke got TWO years ago?

He's the better pitcher, and more durable.

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

@Ken_Rosenthal: Sources: Barring late change, Lester choosing between #Cubs, #SFGiants.

[bloodbrother]

With each post, this thread title becomes even funnier

[QuinlansMinion]

Why would anyone want to go to the Cubs?  Do MLB players enjoy losing these days?

[SoWhat]

Why would anyone want to go to the Cubs? Do MLB players enjoy losing these days?

Lol you make some of the worst, yet entertaining posts on this board.

[Stradling]

They go to the Cubs, because the team is going to be the "IT" team pretty soon. They have a manager and general manager with recent success. They have a team that has a deep farm, with some very good high level prospects, that will be here sooner rather than later. They also have a team that spends money. Lastly, they have a team with a great fanbase. Who wouldn't want to be part of the team that finally gets them over the hump. You would be treated like royalty in that city forever.

[ELEVEN]

The Cubs product is losing. If they ever won they would have to come up with another gimmick.

[nando714]

The Cubs have a deep farm = a huge question mark and banking on luck.

How many of them will actually pan oUT

Time will tell

[ELEVEN]

With each post, this thread title becomes even funnier

I thought the C J Wilson Available for trade thread had the funnier title.

[QuinlansMinion]

They go to the Cubs, because the team is going to be the "IT" team pretty soon. They have a manager and general manager with recent success. They have a team that has a deep farm, with some very good high level prospects, that will be here sooner rather than later. They also have a team that spends money. Lastly, they have a team with a great fanbase. Who wouldn't want to be part of the team that finally gets them over the hump. You would be treated like royalty in that city forever.

You would be treated like royalty in any city if you won a championship.  Even with the prospects they have they are a long ways away from competing.  Not to mention, banking on prospects isnt a good strategy, they could turn out to be Howie Kendricks.

[Stradling]

I doubt they are banking on prospects if they are trying to get Lester.

[Cdaniel]

You would be treated like royalty in any city if you won a championship. Even with the prospects they have they are a long ways away from competing. Not to mention, banking on prospects isnt a good strategy, they could turn out to be Howie Kendricks.

I'd take a team full of Howie Kendricks.

[dimitrig]

The luxury tax is designed to be a minor nuisance to teams that are only over for one or two years in a row, but severely punish teams that are over the threshold for multiple straight years. The luxury tax rules punish repeat offenders with progressively escaalting tax rates, and progressively reducing the share of money that high payroll teams receive from MLB revenue sharing pools for every consecutive year over the cutoff. However, if a team dips below the threshold even for just one year, the tax rates reset back to the minimum.

 

If the tax were based on individual year salaries, teams could easily game their contracts to avoid going over the luxury tax theshold in multiple consecutive years by, for example, alternating between paying their star some insanely high value one year (like $50M) then league minimum the next year to help bring the team's payroll below the threshold and reset the cap.

 

So why not sign the guy to a $100M/200 year contract?

[dimitrig]

i don't think i was being cute, and i'm not particularly fond of that characterization.. what you're suggesting doesn't make mathematical or financial sense. the facts are that the going rate for top talent is around 18-20 million per year right now, and elite is around 30-35. why would you pay someone who would sign for 20 million per year for five years, to a contract that would pay them 33.3 million per year? just because it's 2 years less? why not just sign them for the going rate and if you get five years production then great, but if not then you could release them? the dollars are the same. also, you totally **** yourself salary cap wise.

 

My point is that the dollars ARE NOT the same. A 3/$100M contract is $33M per year. A 5/$125M contract is $25M per year and (more importantly) $25M less. If the guy is confident he can produce at a certain level then he might be willing to take 30% more per year for a shorter contract. If he can continue to perform then he will get that much OR MORE in years four and five. From a player's perspective it could really mean 5/$150M versus 5/$125M. That's why I mentioned Michael Jordan as an example. I realize every contract is taking many factors (such as injuries) into account, but I can see that a shorter contract for more $$$ would definitely appeal to teams and could also appeal to some players.

Edited December 9, 2014 by dimitrig

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

@JonHeymanCBS: hear lester has 6-year and 7-year offers. wont necessarily take the biggest $ offer tho.