Question regarding Pujols

[Glen]

Since it's hypotheticals time. If the Angels bought out his contract, does anyone know if that means his salary is cleared under the salary cap, or would it still apply?

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, Glen said:

Since it's hypotheticals time. If the Angels bought out his contract, does anyone know if that means his salary is cleared under the salary cap, or would it still apply?

I am pretty sure there is no way to get his salary cleared unless he retires or is traded. If they release him, the number is still there.

I suppose what could happen is they could make some sort of deal like this: Pujols agrees to retire if the Angels agree to sign him to a new "personal services" contract that pays him whatever is left on his contract, plus interest if it's stretched out over a longer term. I am not 100 percent sure the Players Assn. would allow that, though.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Jeff Fletcher

[Glen]

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

I am pretty sure there is no way to get his salary cleared unless he retires or is traded. If they release him, the number is still there.

That's what I thought. Thanks, @Jeff Fletcher.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I am pretty sure there is no way to get his salary cleared unless he retires or is traded. If they release him, the number is still there.

I suppose what could happen is they could make some sort of deal like this: Pujols agrees to retire if the Angels agree to sign him to a new "personal services" contract that pays him whatever is left on his contract, plus interest if it's stretched out over a longer term. I am not 100 percent sure the Players Assn. would allow that, though.

As I'm thinking about this more, that would be a pretty transparent circumnavigation of the CBA, and not allowed. I think they are pretty strict about this stuff and not letting people find loopholes.

One time I asked Eppler if you could, in order to work around the the draft spending pool limits, sign some kid to a small bonus, but then pay him a $10M salary at Orem. He said they've thought of everything, and wouldn't allow that.

So I assume they also wouldn't allow my "retirement" scam either. 

I suppose he might legit retire before the end of 2021, but I think he'd have to be a lot worse than he is now, like hitting .180 or something. In his mind, he still feels like he's hitting a lot of line drives (which he kind of is, but they aren't hits because he's so slow and he has to cheat so he pulls many of them into shifts.)

[greginpsca]

After the Pujols signing, i believe that personal services contracts are no longer allowed. 

 

[YouthofToday]

30 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

After the Pujols signing, i believe that personal services contracts are no longer allowed. 

 

Fact check: true. 

[kevinb]

What’s happening with the David Wright deal?

[Lou]

Wright is retiring. 

[kevinb]

Just now, Lou said:

Wright is retiring. 

But he’s getting full salary paid. Is it counting on the books?

[Lou]

it depends on any agreement worked out between Wright and the Mets, eg a buyout of his two remaining years on his contract.

[wopphil]

The only way to deal with Pujols is to bat him at the bottom of the order, where he undoubtedly now belongs, and relegate him to a part time role. Perhaps he will get that message.

[Dtwncbad]

9 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

As I'm thinking about this more, that would be a pretty transparent circumnavigation of the CBA, and not allowed. I think they are pretty strict about this stuff and not letting people find loopholes.

One time I asked Eppler if you could, in order to work around the the draft spending pool limits, sign some kid to a small bonus, but then pay him a $10M salary at Orem. He said they've thought of everything, and wouldn't allow that.

So I assume they also wouldn't allow my "retirement" scam either. 

I suppose he might legit retire before the end of 2021, but I think he'd have to be a lot worse than he is now, like hitting .180 or something. In his mind, he still feels like he's hitting a lot of line drives (which he kind of is, but they aren't hits because he's so slow and he has to cheat so he pulls many of them into shifts.)

Jeff the players union would be perfectly fine with a deal as long as Pujols doesn't give up a dime.

And if you think it through, they would be happy with it.  Pujols gets every dime and more money is freed up to let other players make more money.

[Jeff Fletcher]

37 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff the players union would be perfectly fine with a deal as long as Pujols doesn't give up a dime.

And if you think it through, they would be happy with it.  Pujols gets every dime and more money is freed up to let other players make more money.

Well if you’re not allowed to do personal services contracts, he’d still have his salary on the MLB payroll. 

[Dtwncbad]

Does Bobby Bonillas money every year count toward the Mets luxury tax number?

You absolutely can reach an agreement with Pujols that restructures the obligation still owed to him.  The union needs to approve it to make sure the player is not giving up money.

How the money is treated in the luxury tax equation is what I don't know.

However, let's imagine that the Angels get no luxury tax relief immediately from a restructured deal with Pujols.  Jeff YOU said Arte is looking at payroll based in real cash flow dollars.  If the Pujols deal was restructured the Angels would have a huge relief in true cash flow obligation in real dollars over the next couple of years.

You mentioned "personal services."  I have no idea how that label affects what I am talking about.  If they can't call it that then so be it.

But players have in the past accepted restructured deals where they get paid many years into their retirement.

I don't see any obstacle to the Angels also being able to do that with Pujols, provided he doesn't give up a dime.

[Blarg]

Yes, Bonilla's money is part of their player payroll.

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yes, Bonilla's money is part of their player payroll.

So (other than Pujols saying FU to the idea of not playing anymore) why couldn't the Angels just restructure his salary over 8 or 10 more years with interest?

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

So (other than Pujols saying FU to the idea of not playing anymore) why couldn't the Angels just restructure his salary over 8 or 10 more years with interest?

Well like you said, maybe Albert would have no interest in doing so.  Albert could say, if you want to buy me out then give me my exact contract.  

I am in the camp of having an honest conversation with him and batting him in the bottom third and see if he also comes to the realization and simply retires, leaving the final year or two of his contract.  

I am sure there are options in the middle where both the player and the team save face.  He retires but the team starts an annual donation to the Pujols foundation.  Or they start a joint foundation and what would have been his salary goes into that so to speak.  

[arch stanton]

They can restructure til the cows come home but somebody’s still on the hook for a $24mil annual CBT hit unless he retires early 

[Dtwncbad]

23 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

They can restructure til the cows come home but somebody’s still on the hook for a $24mil annual CBT hit unless he retires early 

Procedurally, if they restructure his deal over 10 years (or whatever) and then he symbolically retires but technically the Angels release him, then this solves just about everything.

I just don't see Pujols retiring and leaving money on the table.

So I am focusing on possible ways that Pujols gets all his money and the Angels get cash flow and lux tax relief.

[Lou]

this is what I found regarding Michael Cuddyer, who retired after the first year of a two- year deal with the Mets:

"It is unclear how much the Mets will pay of Cuddyer's $12.5 million 2016 salary as a buyout, as all $21 million of his deal was guaranteed. Cuddyer declined to discuss specifics of his situation, saying only that the Mets and chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon handled it "with tremendous respect and tremendous class the whole time."

"Cuddyer's time with the Mets may not have matched Wright's vision, but his retirement now provides the Mets with an unexpected measure of flexibility. His lost salary reduces the Mets' 2015 payroll from around $104 million to approximately $92 million, less the value of any buyout. As recently as Thursday, assistant general manager John Ricco said the Mets had enough resources available to acquire a center fielder, a fifth starter and a veteran reliever; Cuddyer's absence should only help New York in those pursuits.

[Jeff Fletcher]

The Bobby Bonilla agreement happened about 12 years before the luxury tax existed, so however it is calculated may not be relevant to how it would count with Pujols. 

I believe any kind restructuring of the Pujols deal to circumvent the CBA would not fly with the other owners. And any restructuring of the deal to pay him less actual money would not fly with the players. 

The only hope is that Pujols decides, on his own, that he is performing so poorly he’d rather retire and not get the money at all. I wouldn’t entirely rule that out, but I can’t see it happening before 2020 or even 2021.

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The Bobby Bonilla agreement happened about 12 years before the luxury tax existed, so however it is calculated may not be relevant to how it would count with Pujols. 

I believe any kind restructuring of the Pujols deal to circumvent the CBA would not fly with the other owners. And any restructuring of the deal to pay him less actual money would not fly with the players. 

The only hope is that Pujols decides, on his own, that he is performing so poorly he’d rather retire and not get the money at all. I wouldn’t entirely rule that out, but I can’t see it happening before 2020 or even 2021.

Jeff, the only thing to be determined is how a restructured deal is treated under the lux tax calculations.

You keep saying a "deal to circumvent" wont fly.  No kidding.

But you don't seem interested in aknowledging a deal that would not circumvent anything.

 

[TroutBaseball]

Responding to Fletcher ^ I think this would be the bigger concern. Not the Players Assn but the other owners. 

[Lou]

25 minutes ago, TroutBaseball said:

Responding to Fletcher ^ I think this would be the bigger concern. Not the Players Assn but the other owners. 

you seem to underestimate the power of the Players Assn

[Lou]

29 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Jeff, the only thing to be determined is how a restructured deal is treated under the lux tax calculations.

You keep saying a "deal to circumvent" wont fly.  No kidding.

But you don't seem interested in aknowledging a deal that would not circumvent anything.

 

and what type of deal would that be?