Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Does Longoria Make Sense


Dave Saltzer

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Brent Maguire said:

Hmmm. That changes things a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if he was worth that contract in the end but I'm not comfortable taking that risk given he just tanked offensively in his age 31 season. This could be his new norm now. 

Yeah, it's still hard to gauge aging curves for current players.   We obviously cant look at guys in the PED era because well -- PEDs, but we can't just go back to 1976 either.  Guys are typically in better shape than players used to be -- they eat better too.... but there is also so much more info on guys these days..   I worry that regardless of how well a guy ages, MLB analytics departments will do a better job of finding and exploiting growing weaknesses...   Longo's already had some back issues as well.

It's like you said -- it's the risk involved, the Angels aren't in a position to do it.   Say they sign a guy like Nunez, or they ride it out with Valbuena -- at worst they are stuck for a year or two and 8-15 mil...   Much easier to absorb and move on from than 5/86

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

According to BBRef.com...

2018 32 Tampa Bay Rays $13,500,000 9.170  
2019 33 Tampa Bay Rays $14,500,000    
2020 34 Tampa Bay Rays $15,000,000    
2021 35 Tampa Bay Rays $18,500,000    
2022 36 Tampa Bay Rays $19,500,000    
2023 37 Tampa Bay Rays *$13,000,000   $13M Team Option, $5M Buyout

They will have to pay 5 mil to avoid that 6th option year...   So... 5/86 minimum.

disgstd.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vlad27Trout27 said:

If we could get Archer or some of there young arms and they agreed to eat some of the money from his large years(18-14, 19-15) Than maybe.

You know what after checking his stats for the past few years, its clear thats he's been in decline in both Avg and Obp. i think it'll be an bad idea to take that contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. The AAV resets when a player is traded, so it's the AAV of what you're paying him that counts against your CBT payroll.

So I went digging a little in the CBA and found this under the 'Rules for Allocation of Salary', subsection ( b ) 'Assignment of Contract':

Capture.PNG

To me this reads that if a player's Uniform Player Contract has been assigned to another club via trade and the assignor club pays any amount of cash, that cash amount is spread out over the assignor club's payroll based on the remaining years of the players UPC. For instance if the Marlins trade Stanton to another team and send $9M in cash it would be spread out over Miami's actual payroll over the next 3 years at $3M per year. For the team that receives the $9M it can be applied all in one year or spread out over all three depending on what the two teams agree too, i.e. the acquiring team could request $5M in 2019 and $4M in 2020 for example which would impact their payroll for those two years only.

At no point have I been able to find a section in the CBA that states that when a player's UPC is assigned that the contract is considered a 'new contract' and the AAV is recalculated. All of the language in the CBA states the 'assignment' of a contract in regard to a trade from one team to another. Of course it is a big document and I could definitely have missed something I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

I'm thinking that once the player signs a multi-year deal UPC that contract would remain intact if the player is traded with the cash considerations following the rule above. This would allow the acquiring team to choose where the cash relief occurs while the trading team will automatically have it spread out over the remaining years of control that the player has on his UPC. It would seem that once the player signs his UPC and AAV is determined based on (total salary + signing bonus) / total guaranteed years that UPC is valid even when the contract is assigned to another team via trade. The only way it gets ripped up is if the player agrees to do it (like Upton just did).

I could be completely and utterly wrong here. I still sort of like your angle on it Jeff but the solution above makes some sense too.

Edited by ettin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I can double-check (not that it really matters) but I am pretty sure I asked about this after the Simmons deal. 

It doesn't make sense that a second team should get the AAV benefit of a backloaded contract when they didn't pay the front. 

That would be great if you could Jeff this is the sort of thing that will drive me into madness, blubbering and drooling in the corner of my padded cell if I don't contain it or get the final answer. :D

Sorry Jeff it is the tiny engineer in my wee brain wondering how it works. :dancing-cat-smiley-emoticon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I can double-check (not that it really matters) but I am pretty sure I asked about this after the Simmons deal. 

It doesn't make sense that a second team should get the AAV benefit of a backloaded contract when they didn't pay the front. 

First, thanks for responding to my post yesterday. But, I would appreciate it if you would check on this as well and let us know what the correct answer is (not that I doubt you, but, I didn't think that the contract value resets at the time of a trade--just any money sent was spread out). If the contract reset at the time of the trade, that could make things a lot more complicated for teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

First, thanks for responding to my post yesterday. But, I would appreciate it if you would check on this as well and let us know what the correct answer is (not that I doubt you, but, I didn't think that the contract value resets at the time of a trade--just any money sent was spread out). If the contract reset at the time of the trade, that could make things a lot more complicated for teams.

I checked. I was wrong. 

The AAV stays the same, although it does change somewhat if there's money included in the deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tying in with the rumors about the Angels upgrading RF and the theory about dealing a SP for a 2B...what if a deal involved Odorizzi or, far more unlikely, Kiermaier being lumped in with a bulk of Longo's contract?

Saves the Rays quite a bit of dough and they definitely need financial help,  even though Kiermaier comes with tremendous value (maybe too much for Tampa to surrender to accommodate a salary dump) and Odorizzi a relatively minor dollar savings, both would be of interest to the Halos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I checked. I was wrong. 

The AAV stays the same, although it does change somewhat if there's money included in the deal. 

Thank you Jeff appreciate you reaching out to whomever you spoke too!

Probably if there is cash included I imagine it is probably taken out similar to the process outlined above but divided by the total years of the contract.

Perhaps that is what that cash consideration section is specifically referring too since you can't go back and recalculate AAV over the entire length of the contract. It makes some sense that any cash sent would have a corresponding decrease in AAV so, using the example above of the Marlins sending $9M for the last three years of Stanton, you'd normally take the $9M and divide it by the 6 years leading up to his opt-out (which would have been $1.5M per season in AAV) but now because you only have three years left you'd have to spread it out over the remaining 3 years which is the $9M/3 years = $3M in 2018, 2019, and 2020 against the Marlins payroll.

Again thanks Jeff for checking it out, this is why we love you here! :D

Edited by ettin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, it depends on the cost but I would imagine the Rays would want a fairly hefty return.  

There is nothing but decline left for Evan Longoria.  To me, there isn't a worse time to acquire him.  He's yet to start being bad so the selling team still expects a decent return.  The acquiring team takes on 5/86 for age 32-36.  

The big key for any free agent is to get at least a portion of their prime.  That age 26-31.  Honestly, we got damn lucky with Hunter.  

Longoria is the guy you acquire when you fell short on a playoff run and you need that one last piece where you are likely to get solid production for at least two years.  

As much as I'm skeptical about Moustakas, he's a much better buy for this team.  He's not a great buy overall, but I'd rather bet on a solid age 29-31 with a couple of overpaid age 32 and 33 yo seasons.  Plus, you aren't giving up players in return.  

If I am giving up prospects, I am targeting club controlled guys with upside like Eugenio Suarez or Yolmer Sanchez.

Take a look at who Eppler has acquired in trade.  There's Simmons (young, club friendly contract.  potential to improve offensively) and everyone else.  In the everyone else bin, it's guys with minimal commitment that are a little longer in the tooth.  Maybin, Espinosa, Nolasco, etc.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

Tying in with the rumors about the Angels upgrading RF and the theory about dealing a SP for a 2B...what if a deal involved Odorizzi or, far more unlikely, Kiermaier being lumped in with a bulk of Longo's contract?

Saves the Rays quite a bit of dough and they definitely need financial help,  even though Kiermaier comes with tremendous value (maybe too much for Tampa to surrender to accommodate a salary dump) and Odorizzi a relatively minor dollar savings, both would be of interest to the Halos.

Kiermaier would get some serious attention from the Mets if we're looking for a third party in a deal. Could be a way to spread out the money and even out the value relating to team needs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about make a play for both Longoria & Archer?

According to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, the Rays' offseason plans include trading "at least a couple of veterans to reduce payroll."

No veteran appears to be safe, with Topkin naming Evan Longoria, Chris Archer and Alex Colome as possible trade bait. Longoria's contract never gets obscene, but he's owed up to $94 million through 2023 and, while he doesn't have 10/5 rights to veto any trade, Topkin says the club would likely only deal him with the third baseman's blessing. Making things more difficult is the fact that Longoria's .261/.313/.424 line this past season probably doesn't inspire many teams to pony up for the 32-year-old. The only certainty with the Rays this winter seems to be that nothing is certain.
 
 
Source: Tampa Bay Times
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2017 at 11:11 PM, Tank said:

2. trout

3. upton

4. frazier

5. pujols

6. simmons

7. calhoun

i'd be okay with that lineup.

what if this was the lineup? would your heart still go pitter patter? because that's about the same level of production and there's no way scioscia is hitting frazier in front of pujols. longoria was a nice name a few years ago, but his time has passed, at his salary that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

How about make a play for both Longoria & Archer?

According to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, the Rays' offseason plans include trading "at least a couple of veterans to reduce payroll."

No veteran appears to be safe, with Topkin naming Evan Longoria, Chris Archer and Alex Colome as possible trade bait. Longoria's contract never gets obscene, but he's owed up to $94 million through 2023 and, while he doesn't have 10/5 rights to veto any trade, Topkin says the club would likely only deal him with the third baseman's blessing. Making things more difficult is the fact that Longoria's .261/.313/.424 line this past season probably doesn't inspire many teams to pony up for the 32-year-old. The only certainty with the Rays this winter seems to be that nothing is certain.
 
 
Source: Tampa Bay Times

Archer holds an immense amount of value.  We don't have the farm system to acquire him.  Even if we agreed to take on Longoria's contract, I still don't think we'd be able to swing that deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...