Jason Kipnis

[krAbs]

Yeah, in general this offseason I'm against going for outfielders cuz our outfield already feels stacked, and our 2b/3b situation is horrifying, but in this case...if we could pull a Yelich trade off, and then trade calhoun for one infield spot, and sign a free agent for the other, then we are looking very good.

[totdprods]

8 minutes ago, Blarg said:

We don't need a right fielder. Yelich is not a target.

Anyone who could be an upgrade should be a target. It's early in the offseason and Eppler has ample flexibility.

[totdprods]

Yelich is everything we'd ever want Calhoun to be, and in many cases better, with higher upside, a better contract, and younger. 

Calhoun is still valuable enough to help secure 2B/3B/SP and he'd possibly open up a whole new tier of targets.

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Or you can look to upgrade and trade Kole.  We do need a lead off hitter.  He’s young, he has a few years left on a reasonable deal.  

Yelich costs the Marlins $2 million less over the next two years than Clahoun. They will have no interest for a lesser player that costs more. The Angels have costs to consider with other positions of need. There is no advantage of trading Calhoun, eating part of his salary and trading prospects for a position we don't need to fill.

You want a leadoff hitter? Fill that role with a second baseman, a player the Angels are not developing in the minors right now. They have plenty of outfield prospects.

[totdprods]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yelich costs the Marlins $2 million less over the next two years than Clahoun. They will have no interest for a lesser player that costs more. The Angels have costs to consider with other positions of need. There is no advantage of trading Calhoun, eating part of his salary and trading prospects for a position we don't need to fill.

You want a leadoff hitter? Fill that role with a second baseman, a player the Angels are not developing in the minors right now. They have plenty of outfield prospects.

I wouldn't trade Calhoun back to the Marlins, I'd move him elsewhere for a comparable vet that fills a need.

I'd use some of those OF prospects for Yelich. It'd be huge if any of them ever reached what Yelich is currently doing.  

[Stradling]

24 minutes ago, totdprods said:

I wouldn't trade Calhoun back to the Marlins, I'd move him elsewhere for a comparable vet that fills a need.

I'd use some of those OF prospects for Yelich. It'd be huge if any of them ever reached what Yelich is currently doing.  

This. 

[Erstad Grit]

Nah. Keep Calhoun and prospects. Just sign 2b and 3b. 

[Angel Oracle]

Kipnis is a definite rebound candidate, now that he’s healthy going into 2018.   And he isn’t that old.

[oater]

3 hours ago, ettin said:

 

Yeah originally in a different thread Fletcher and I were talking about this but as it turns out it does not reset it is transferred over. If there is cash sent in the deal it impacts not only actual but how much AAV too but on some type of proportional basis that we couldn't figure out (it's not super clear in the CBA). Without examples it's hard to pinpoint.

A simple example as I see it: A player signs a 4 year, $60M contract. That is $15M per year in AAV but the contract pays $10M in year 1, $13M in year 2, $17M in year 3, and $20M in year 4.

After the 2nd year the player is traded to another team and the original club sends $8M in salary relief spread evenly ($4M each) over years 3 and 4.

Because AAV is calculated as the original total contract divided by the number of guaranteed years ($60M/4 years = $15M), in order to calculate how much AAV the original club keeps and how much the new team takes on would require that the $8M be divided by the original number of guaranteed years ($8M/4 years = $2M/year in AAV). So basically the original team will have $2M in AAV on their books for the next two years even though the player is now off of their roster is how I see it. This is why teams don't send cash as often because they like keeping their ledgers clean.

So basically the acquiring team will only pay $13M and $16M in actual club payroll for years 3 and 4 while in terms of AAV they will only be at $13M in both of those years for purposes of the Luxury Tax. The original team would carry $2M in AAV on their books for years 3 and 4. Note that this (AAV) would still be true even if they had applied all of the $8M to only year 3 or only year 4 for example (i.e. the money could have been split up any way the two clubs chose to do it but the AAV would still be the same because it is calculated as an average).

Remember that this is my interpretation. I could be wrong but it makes sense to me.

I agree that the AAV of the contract does not "reset" as a result of a trade.  Thus, in your example, the AAV remains at $15M.  However, under the new CBA (Art. XXIII, C(2)(b)(iii)), the cash paid by the trading team is evenly allocated over the remaining years of the contract.  If $8M is paid and two years remain on the contract, $4M its allocated to each year.  The $4M is added to the payroll of the trading team (the payor) and deducted from the payroll of the team that acquired the player (the payee).  Thus, in your example, the acquiring team has an AAV of $11M  in each of the remaining two years on the contract.  

Under the previous CBA, the accounting rules were somewhat different, since the charges and credits were determined based on the year in which the money was paid, rather than being spread evenly over the remaining years on the contract.

 

[ettin]

11 minutes ago, oater said:

I agree that the AAV of the contract does not "reset" as a result of a trade.  Thus, in your example, the AAV remains at $15M.  However, under the new CBA (Art. XXIII, C(2)(b)(iii)), the cash paid by the trading team is evenly allocated over the remaining years of the contract.  If $8M is paid and two years remain on the contract, $4M its allocated to each year.  The $4M is added to the payroll of the trading team (the payor) and deducted from the payroll of the team that acquired the player (the payee).  Thus, in your example, the acquiring team has an AAV of $11M  in each of the remaining two years on the contract.  

Under the previous CBA, the accounting rules were somewhat different, since the charges and credits were determined based on the year in which the money was paid, rather than being spread evenly over the remaining years on the contract.

 

Yes you are correct the new rules have changed but you have to be careful about assuming that the $4M is taken off AAV. Actual and AAV are not the same. In the example I presented I agree that actual would reduce down to $13M and $16 in years 3 and 4 but the AAV would only be reduced by the aforementioned $2M. AAV is calculated as an average so you have to recalculate the proportional amount that the $8M represents to the original AAV (the $8M divided by 4 years, not two years).

[oater]

5 hours ago, ettin said:

Yes you are correct the new rules have changed but you have to be careful about assuming that the $4M is taken off AAV. Actual and AAV are not the same. In the example I presented I agree that actual would reduce down to $13M and $16 in years 3 and 4 but the AAV would only be reduced by the aforementioned $2M. AAV is calculated as an average so you have to recalculate the proportional amount that the $8M represents to the original AAV (the $8M divided by 4 years, not two years).

Well, OK--but really not.  My comment was intended to reflect the net effect on the payroll allocated to the respective teams for purpose of the CBT.   Technically, the  AAV of the contract remains at $15M  irrespective of which team pays the salary.  However, for CBT purposes, $4M per year is added to the payroll of the payor team and $4M per year is subtracted from the payee team over the two remaining years on the contract.  The CBA provides:

"An assignor Club that pays cash consideration to defray all or part of the salary obligation of the assignee Club for an assigned Player or Players shall include such cash consideration in its Actual Club Payroll on a pro-rata basis over the remaining Guaranteed Years of the assigned Contract( s). . . .  Any cash consideration that is included in the Actual Club Payroll of the payor Club shall be subtracted from the Actual Club Payroll of the payee Club in the same Contract Year in which it is added to the payor Club’s Actual Club Payroll."

 

[TroutField]

Just bored and thinking about dream scenarios that won’t happen. 

 

Yelich and Castro to the Angels for Thaiss, Carlos Perez, Jahmai Jones, Parker Bridwell, and Chris Rodriguez. 

 

Nice package and some salary relief for the Marlins. Upton/Trout/Yelich. Calhoun can cycle in as our 4th outfielder/DH/1b so that he still gets full time at bats. Castro becomes our second baseman. Adds a lot of offense

Sign Darvish, Trade Cron for a reliever and sigh one more bullpen arm to round out the pen, somebody to platoon with Valbuena at 3rd and call it an offseason. 

Close enough to get us within a stones throw of the Astros... maybe?