The Official 2017-2018 Hot Stove Thread

[KevinStockerIsGod]

5 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

Just means that the Yankees may now be in on Darvish.

I doubt that puts the Yankees in on Darvish.  Yankees are trying to reduce payroll to stay under the tax this year.  They probably could have fit in Cole, but adding a 20+ mil a year pitcher doesn't really make sense for them.

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, jordan111280 said:

Was just about to post same tweet.  Good on the Astros to keep improving.  Does Eppler respond?  I doubt respond would be an appropriate term, but does he continue to add on?

I don't know if he'll respond per se - but, one less team in the running for Darvish, and even though our odds were long to top Houston for the division, it's certainly a stretch now. Do we really want to have made all these in-roads to compete only to risk being bounced in an elimination game? 

At the start of the year, I flatly did not want the Angels blowing resources on a TORP. But we got one for free virtually in Ohtani. And addressed every other need so, so cheaply (or at least on great terms) and I've flipped - more and more each day I want to see the Angels land Darvish or another TORP. It'll lift this team to a new level. It is no doubt going to be an overpay and a contract that likely will not be good in 3 or 5 years, but Eppler's fantastic underpaying and flexibility to this point allows him to take that risk. It will not sink us like other contracts had before. Eppler's built a better team to surround that risk, and he's a better GM to handle any misfires that come with it.

[Ohtaniland]

2 minutes ago, KevinStockerIsGod said:

I doubt that puts the Yankees in on Darvish.  Yankees are trying to reduce payroll to stay under the tax this year.  They probably could have fit in Cole, but adding a 20+ mil a year pitcher doesn't really make sense for them.

They’re doing everything they can to move some of Ellsbury’s salary off the books. They want Darvish. 

[KevinStockerIsGod]

2 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

They’re doing everything they can to move some of Ellsbury’s salary off the books. They want Darvish. 

They also need a 2B and 3B.  And moving Ellsbury will be a difficult proposition. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, OHTANILAND said:

They’re doing everything they can to move some of Ellsbury’s salary off the books. They want Darvish. 

Elsbury is owed a ton of money for three years I think.  He’s owed about $64 million.  When you find the taker for that contract then find the taker for Albert.  They both are incredibly over paid and both have no trade clauses.  The Yankees would have to part with very high end prospects to rid themselves of that contract. 

[Chuck]

Nobody is going to take Ellsbury. He's a below average CF with declining offensive attributes. For the money he's owed, the Yankees would have to pay most of his salary to unload him, which actually defeats the purpose of trading him to clear salary. 

[Angel Oracle]

Andddd, the Cole trade to Houston is not on, yet.

 

[totdprods]

Bruce to the Mets for a surprisingly affordable 3/$39m.

Also....this:

Max Wildstein

Yu Darvish has reportedly narrowed down his potential landing sports to #Rangers, #Yankees, #Cubs, #Astros and #Twins, per @JeffWilson_FWST.

BUT - Darvish retweeted this and said "I know one more team is in".

 

[wopphil]

Seems like the Rangers won't put up the money required, the Yankees want to get under the cap, the Astros want Cole, and who wants to play for Minnesota. That leaves the Cubs  (my guess) or the mystery team.

[totdprods]

14 minutes ago, wopphil said:

Seems like the Rangers won't put up the money required, the Yankees want to get under the cap, the Astros want Cole, and who wants to play for Minnesota. That leaves the Cubs  (my guess) or the mystery team.

If Minnesota is offering the most, it could at least level the playing field. Cubs have been a little quiet this offseason. And Cole isn't final yet...

Gotta say, the similarities with the radio silence with the Angels (who have been mentioned with those same teams prior) feels eerily in step with Eppler's way of doing business.

[Warfarin]

8 minutes ago, totdprods said:

If Minnesota is offering the most, it could at least level the playing field. Cubs have been a little quiet this offseason. And Cole isn't final yet...

Gotta say, the similarities with the radio silence with the Angels (who have been mentioned with those same teams prior) feels eerily in step with Eppler's way of doing business.

We'll see.  We sit at roughly 175mil luxury tax AAV currently.  With the cap set at 197mil, and with us most likely earmarking roughly 5-7mil for mid-season acquisitions, that means we only have roughly 15-17 mil luxury tax AAV left to play with.  Of course, we could always trade/not tender players (Cron?), so more room could be made, but I'm not sure if we can sign Darvish and stay under the cap, unless Darvish is literally the last player we add.  This is possible, but it rules out us signing a 4th OF, another bat for the bench, etc.

[nando714]

Verlander 

Dallas k

Darvish

McCullers

cole 

that wouldnt be fair 

[ukyah]

3 hours ago, totdprods said:

Bruce to the Mets for a surprisingly affordable 3/$39m.

 

 

remember this?

clubs are under the impression that free-agent right fielder Jay Bruce is seeking $80-90MM over a five-year term.

hilarious.

[Troll Daddy]

3 hours ago, Warfarin said:

We'll see.  We sit at roughly 175mil luxury tax AAV currently.  With the cap set at 197mil, and with us most likely earmarking roughly 5-7mil for mid-season acquisitions, that means we only have roughly 15-17 mil luxury tax AAV left to play with.  Of course, we could always trade/not tender players (Cron?), so more room could be made, but I'm not sure if we can sign Darvish and stay under the cap, unless Darvish is literally the last player we add.  This is possible, but it rules out us signing a 4th OF, another bat for the bench, etc.

Pujols has a $3M performance bonus kicking in this season ...  does that go against the cap?

[Stradling]

Yes

[ettin]

47 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes

No actually it is not. Signing bonuses count againt AAV but not performance bonuses. They do add directly to the actual club salary for the year that they are earned.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

23 minutes ago, ettin said:

No actually it is not. Signing bonuses count againt AAV but not performance bonuses. They do add directly to the actual club salary for the year that they are earned.

They don't affect AAV, but I'm pretty sure they count against the luxury tax in the year they're incurred.

Edit: Jeff includes it in his luxury tax estimate for this year.

http://www.angelswin-forum.com/forums/topic/33213-starting-pitching-relief/?do=findComment&comment=1069443

 

[Stradling]

6 hours ago, ettin said:

No actually it is not. Signing bonuses count againt AAV but not performance bonuses. They do add directly to the actual club salary for the year that they are earned.

That seems wrong.  I mean wouldn’t this be the easiest way to circumvent the tax ever.  You write an easy to achieve goal for Trout and have his base salary be $10 million and have the other $20 million be bonuses?

[arch stanton]

No circumvention. This year Albert is $27 mil instead of $24 mil

[Stradling]

So it does count against the luxury tax number?  

[arch stanton]

That’s what I was referring to 

[ettin]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

That seems wrong.  I mean wouldn’t this be the easiest way to circumvent the tax ever.  You write an easy to achieve goal for Trout and have his base salary be $10 million and have the other $20 million be bonuses?

 

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

No circumvention. This year Albert is $27 mil instead of $24 mil

The original question was does it count against the AAV cap and it does not.

MLB and the Player's Union regulate contracts to ensure no one is handing out performance bonuses that are out of whack. For instance you don't promise a player that if he pitches 1 inning he gets a $5M performance bonus. MLB and the Player's Union would be against that (MLB believing the organization is trying to circumvent the CBT threshold while the Player's Union will be wondering why that money isn't guaranteed in the contract in the first place).

When the Angels offered Pujols the $10M personal services contract and added in those performance bonuses it was not viewed very kindly by MLB but because it was such a monster contract a $3M performance bonus wasn't looked at as an oddity. Also MLB shut down the ability for teams to provide personal services contracts after a player has retired because of what happened with Albert.

Any performance bonus that is earned will be added to actual club payroll for that season. However in terms of the Luxury Tax and AAV a performance bonus is not added into the calculation for determining AAV, only signing bonuses (of which I believe Albert received a $10M one initially if I recall correctly).

So to summarize the Luxury Tax threshold is not impacted by a performance bonus.

Edited January 11, 2018 by ettin

[Stradling]

That makes a lot more sense.  Thanks Arch. 

[ettin]

And here is the relevant part of the new CBA:

(4)

Performance, Award and Other Bonuses

(a) Any amounts that are actually earned by a Player as Perfor-

mance Bonuses, Award Bonuses or any other bonuses properly

included in a Uniform Player’s Contract shall be included as part of

the player’s Salary in the Contract Year in which the service or per-

formance giving rise to the Bonus was provided. Potential bonuses

shall not be included in the AAV calculation made pursuant to Sec-

tion E(2) above

 

[Angelsfan1984]

What do you guys think about Ellsbury. If the yanks are really willing to pay at least half of the remaining contract we could move Calhoun and get our leadoff hitter for a decently cheap price.