Current payroll and where we stand

[Docwaukee]

According to BBref, we have an estimated payroll of $146.3 mil.  

$116.7 mil in guaranteed salaries
$22.1 mil in arb estimates
$7.49 mil in league min salaries.  

There's about an 17m gap between actual payroll and the AAV estimate for the CBT threshold calc.  

I have heard that benefits/bonus estimates are in the 10-15m range.  So call it 12.5.  So our actual CBT number is around $142m.    With a CBT threshold cap of $206 mil, that's obviously not a concern in that we'd have to add $64 mil in AAV payroll to get to that level.  

In years past, the CBT number was an issue but now that it's not, what is the real number.  According to @Jeff Fletcher it seems that the team would be willing to add about $30 mil in actual payroll for 2019.  Which would be about where we were for 2018.  

[ScottT]

I'd hope they are open to adding at least that.

Wonder what revenue was in 2018 compared to 2017.  Ad revenue from Japanese companies was certainly up.

[ettin]

I will publish my point of view on Finances soon. However the $17M-18M gap is where I have it too. However I still maintain that Benefits are not as high as people think based on what was published in the CBA last year. I will admit that I could be 100% wrong about the calculation based on what I interpreted and read.

$30M is about what we can spend. However as @Jeff Fletcher intimated about 3 weeks ago in a different thread the Angels can extend someone like Trout and keep his 2019 salary nearly identical to what it is supposed to be under his current contract (maintaining the amount of free actual payroll) while eating up the extra gap we have in AAV. Notably if Trout signs a 12 year/$500M deal that would be about a $16M increase in AAV by the way and you could keep his salary lower in years 1 and 2 (and even 3) until Pujols contract is off the books.

A Mike Trout extension feels almost like a given to me this off-season.

[floplag]

If im reading this correctly you are suggesting we have about 60M under the cap? 
This is what i thought originally as well but i was overlooking something in my numbers that he had pointed out suggesting that the 30M number actually put us neat the cap, though i cant find that specific post right now.  If i recall it was due to grossly under estimating the arbitration numbers, assuming we intended to actually keep them all.

[Docwaukee]

42 minutes ago, ettin said:

I will publish my point of view on Finances soon. However the $17M-18M gap is where I have it too. However I still maintain that Benefits are not as high as people think based on what was published in the CBA last year. I will admit that I could be 100% wrong about the calculation based on what I interpreted and read.

$30M is about what we can spend. However as @Jeff Fletcher intimated about 3 weeks ago in a different thread the Angels can extend someone like Trout and keep his 2019 salary nearly identical to what it is supposed to be under his current contract (maintaining the amount of free actual payroll) while eating up the extra gap we have in AAV. Notably if Trout signs a 12 year/$500M deal that would be about a $16M increase in AAV by the way and you could keep his salary lower in years 1 and 2 (and even 3) until Pujols contract is off the books.

A Mike Trout extension feels almost like a given to me this off-season.

I feel like if they do a Trout extension, I really hope they can get is so there are at least three more years of control prior to an opt out.  Giving Eppler 5 yrs to play with.  

I'd rather see them maintain their financial flexibility in 2021-23 as opposed to doing so in for 2019.  They would definitely try to offset some of the Pujols money in 2021 which could be an odd year financially if they decide to extend Simmons as well.  But even if Albert retires, he'll still count against the CBT for his entire AAV in 2021.  So you could end up with $105m toward the CBT threshold for four players that year.  About half of the $210m limit.  In all likelihood, we'll sign at least one pitcher for three year this season who will also count and that doesn't include whoever we sign next year as well.    Also in 2021, Skaggs will be a free agent (extension as well?) and Heaney will be arb-3.  Ohtani will be arb-1.  

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

If im reading this correctly you are suggesting we have about 60M under the cap? 
This is what i thought originally as well but i was overlooking something in my numbers that he had pointed out suggesting that the 30M number actually put us neat the cap, though i cant find that specific post right now.  If i recall it was due to grossly under estimating the arbitration numbers, assuming we intended to actually keep them all.

per Fletch, it's not about the cap number but about the actual payroll number and how much Arte is willing to spend as opposed to him being worried about being taxed.  But yes, I have us at about 60m below the threshold as it relates to AAV.  

When they list mlb payrolls, they don't include the benefits and we were at about $174 m last year.  Adding the $30m keeps us about even which seems to be Arte's comfort level.  Personally think the 2019 team could be a lot better with an additional bump in payroll but I doubt that happens.  

Right now it seems that one of the main things restricting payroll is what 2021 has the potential to look like.  As mentioned earlier, even if Albert retires and defers money, his entire AAV of 24m counts against the 2021 threshold.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

I will publish my point of view on Finances soon. However the $17M-18M gap is where I have it too. However I still maintain that Benefits are not as high as people think based on what was published in the CBA last year. I will admit that I could be 100% wrong about the calculation based on what I interpreted and read.

Just last year, I had to cover the Dodgers at the winter meetings, and I was sitting in Andrew Friedman's suite. He never tells anyone anything, so we were sort of just bantering and killing time. I asked him what is the number you use to estimate all the 0-3s, benefits and bonuses, for CBT purposes. He said $20M.

I don't try to interpret the CBA myself. I tend to just ask people who know more than me.

And @floplag, it is the difference between what they are actually paying the players and what the CBT counts. The latter uses AAV, but of course most players are not paid their exact average in a given year. Trout's AAV is 24 but his salary is 34. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, ettin said:

if Trout signs a 12 year/$500M deal

I would be disappointed in both Trout and the Angels because that's just as irresponsible as Pujols contract. 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I would be disappointed in both Trout and the Angels because that's just as irresponsible as Pujols contact. 

perv 

[Docwaukee]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I would be disappointed in both Trout and the Angels because that's just as irresponsible as Pujols contact. 

that really does feel like a fantasy number.  

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

per Fletch, it's not about the cap number but about the actual payroll number and how much Arte is willing to spend as opposed to him being worried about being taxed.  But yes, I have us at about 60m below the threshold as it relates to AAV.  

When they list mlb payrolls, they don't include the benefits and we were at about $174 m last year.  Adding the $30m keeps us about even which seems to be Arte's comfort level.  Personally think the 2019 team could be a lot better with an additional bump in payroll but I doubt that happens.  

Right now it seems that one of the main things restricting payroll is what 2021 has the potential to look like.  As mentioned earlier, even if Albert retires and defers money, his entire AAV of 24m counts against the 2021 threshold.  

I know thats not the point i was making, the point is that as i recall that 30 was what was available under the cap, not 60. 

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Just last year, I had to cover the Dodgers at the winter meetings, and I was sitting in Andrew Friedman's suite. He never tells anyone anything, so we were sort of just bantering and killing time. I asked him what is the number you use to estimate all the 0-3s, benefits and bonuses, for CBT purposes. He said $20M.

I don't try to interpret the CBA myself. I tend to just ask people who know more than me.

And @floplag, it is the difference between what they are actually paying the players and what the CBT counts. The latter uses AAV, but of course most players are not paid their exact average in a given year. Trout's AAV is 24 but his salary is 34. 

Jeff, as i recall the list you put out a few weeks back basically suggested that the 30M was actually putting us near the cap and not leaving much on the table, am i misstating that or misunderstanding it?

[Stradling]

I think you are misunderstanding it.  I am pretty sure that Jeff talked about their budget, not the tax, but I could be wrong.  

[Docwaukee]

 

23 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I think you are misunderstanding it.  I am pretty sure that Jeff talked about their budget, not the tax, but I could be wrong.  

Yes.  @Jeff Fletcher has been quite clear that we've got 30m to spend but he never mentioned that putting us close to the tax threshold.  

[floplag]

21 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

 

Yes.  @Jeff Fletcher has been quite clear that we've got 30m to spend but he never mentioned that putting us close to the tax threshold.  

I could be wrong but im pretty sure the way jeff listed it we were up against it.
I would be very curious though if we are not what that number represents, this team simply cannot be financially strapped

[Docwaukee]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

I could be wrong but im pretty sure the way jeff listed it we were up against it.
I would be very curious though if we are not what that number represents, this team simply cannot be financially strapped

I think we're pretty damn close to the numbers I listed.  We're not strapped.  Part of the reason I posted it was to show that we weren't and that we could go up in payroll a decent amount over the next two years without being at risk for a tax penalty.  

It doesn't change Arte's actual budget though.  Which is based on the real dollars coming in and going out.  Personally, I would like to see that stretched a bit for 19 and 20.  Problem is that most of the time the players that are willing to sign one or two year deals aren't the ones worth stretching for.  

Upon going through the numbers though, it did make me realize that 2021 could be pretty tight financially if they extend Trout and Simmons.  Relative to the tax as well.  

I'd at least like to think they'd be open to one or two year deals on a couple of particular players should they slip through free agency without a deal of 3 years or more.  

[floplag]

15 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I think we're pretty damn close to the numbers I listed.  We're not strapped.  Part of the reason I posted it was to show that we weren't and that we could go up in payroll a decent amount over the next two years without being at risk for a tax penalty.  

It doesn't change Arte's actual budget though.  Which is based on the real dollars coming in and going out.  Personally, I would like to see that stretched a bit for 19 and 20.  Problem is that most of the time the players that are willing to sign one or two year deals aren't the ones worth stretching for.  

Upon going through the numbers though, it did make me realize that 2021 could be pretty tight financially if they extend Trout and Simmons.  Relative to the tax as well.  

I'd at least like to think they'd be open to one or two year deals on a couple of particular players should they slip through free agency without a deal of 3 years or more.  

Isnt that a bit self fulfilling though? You set that kind of limit and it makes the names less appealing and becomes a pointless gesture.
If you would go 2, why is 3 such a horror, especially if its a spot we dont necessarily have depth or someone on the pending ML list that projects high enough at this time, such as 3B where we dont have anyone at all in the top 30 on the farm.

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

Isnt that a bit self fulfilling though? You set that kind of limit and it makes the names less appealing and becomes a pointless gesture.
If you would go 2, why is 3 such a horror, especially if its a spot we dont necessarily have depth or someone on the pending ML list that projects high enough at this time, such as 3B where we dont have anyone at all in the top 30 on the farm.

Ward is beyond prospect/rookie limits for at bats so he doesn't qualify for the list but he was in the 10-12 range.  Catcher is probably a better example, but I see your point and I agree to some extend.  

I really think it boils down to cold hard cash monies.  Like I mentioned, 2021 is already going to be tight if we extend Trout, Simmons and maybe even Skaggs.  Heaney will be arb 3 and ohtani arb 1.  And you still owe big chunks to Albert and Upton.  It's 105m in projections just for 4 players.  Plus I think we'll add a pitcher for 3 yrs or more and possibly even a C.  

If there's one thing we can be sure of with Arte, it's that he stays on budget.  He'll come pretty close to the edge, but he's gonna stop.  We may even see the team front load a couple of contracts this year in order to create some room for 2021.  

Hence the focus on player development.  Nothing is better than having cheap talent and even if it ends up being around average, he's counting on that solid core to make up the difference.  Our biggest problem outside of injuries is that where we aren't good, we are just awful.  That's why I agree it's frustrating because a little extra money to bring in even some average players and bridge the gap could make a significant difference.  The problem is that that difference isn't enough to get you a division win but perhaps a better shot at a crap shoot 1 game playoff.  I can see why Arte wouldn't want to spend an extra $20 mil for that.   

[Angel Oracle]

$30 million = Two durable #3/#4 type starting pitchers and Robertson? 

12 years/$500 million seems too long and too much for Trout, as he will be 29 and 8 months when starting the 2021 season.   

10 years/$400 million seems like a good max, with an opt out after either 2022 or 2023.

[DMVol]

8 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

$30 million = Two durable #3/#4 type starting pitchers and Robertson? 

12 years/$500 million seems too long and too much for Trout, as he will be 29 and 8 months when starting the 2021 season.   

10 years/$400 million seems like a good max, with an opt out after either 2022 or 2023.

I don't think Trout signs an extension....he will want to wait and see what 2019 and beyond look like first....2 SP and a reliever for 30 million doesn't give you a C (Ramos, Grandal ?) or a Swiss Army knife guy to share 1b with Pujols (MGonzalez?)....

[floplag]

21 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Ward is beyond prospect/rookie limits for at bats so he doesn't qualify for the list but he was in the 10-12 range.  Catcher is probably a better example, but I see your point and I agree to some extend.  

I really think it boils down to cold hard cash monies.  Like I mentioned, 2021 is already going to be tight if we extend Trout, Simmons and maybe even Skaggs.  Heaney will be arb 3 and ohtani arb 1.  And you still owe big chunks to Albert and Upton.  It's 105m in projections just for 4 players.  Plus I think we'll add a pitcher for 3 yrs or more and possibly even a C.  

If there's one thing we can be sure of with Arte, it's that he stays on budget.  He'll come pretty close to the edge, but he's gonna stop.  We may even see the team front load a couple of contracts this year in order to create some room for 2021.  

Hence the focus on player development.  Nothing is better than having cheap talent and even if it ends up being around average, he's counting on that solid core to make up the difference.  Our biggest problem outside of injuries is that where we aren't good, we are just awful.  That's why I agree it's frustrating because a little extra money to bring in even some average players and bridge the gap could make a significant difference.  The problem is that that difference isn't enough to get you a division win but perhaps a better shot at a crap shoot 1 game playoff.  I can see why Arte wouldn't want to spend an extra $20 mil for that.   

Im sure it does boil down to monies, but i cannot believe that this club is strapped in that regard.  Strong TV deal, 3 M every year attendance wise, it doesnt add up to being limited cash wise.
As i said i get the focus, i simply dont see why it has to be a choice or why we have to wait, i dont buy that for a second.

[ettin]

12 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Just last year, I had to cover the Dodgers at the winter meetings, and I was sitting in Andrew Friedman's suite. He never tells anyone anything, so we were sort of just bantering and killing time. I asked him what is the number you use to estimate all the 0-3s, benefits and bonuses, for CBT purposes. He said $20M.

I don't try to interpret the CBA myself. I tend to just ask people who know more than me.

And @floplag, it is the difference between what they are actually paying the players and what the CBT counts. The latter uses AAV, but of course most players are not paid their exact average in a given year. Trout's AAV is 24 but his salary is 34. 

It is just me being me, knowing that I am likely missing something important because I don't live in a MLB front office and have a massive amount of high quality information at my fingertips. I keep trying to reconcile what the CBA says (or at least my rudimentary interpretation of it) against what appears to be the reality that I am off by X amount of dollars. I believe you Jeff and I am very likely wrong. But every time I go back to read the CBA it rubs me like a really bad itch.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, DMVol said:

I don't think Trout signs an extension....he will want to wait and see what 2019 and beyond look like first....2 SP and a reliever for 30 million doesn't give you a C (Ramos, Grandal ?) or a Swiss Army knife guy to share 1b with Pujols (MGonzalez?)....

this has been said before by at least me and fletcher, but why would Trout's extension be contingent on what happens in 2019?  He's already signed for that year.  The plan for what comes in 2022 or 2023 is farm more important.  

[ettin]

11 hours ago, Blarg said:

I would be disappointed in both Trout and the Angels because that's just as irresponsible as Pujols contract. 

I get it Blarg, it is a video game number to me too, but one I think is within the realm of actual possibility. I certainly hope it is lower than that because that is good for team finances.

[floplag]

1 minute ago, DMVol said:

I don't think Trout signs an extension....he will want to wait and see what 2019 and beyond look like first....2 SP and a reliever for 30 million doesn't give you a C (Ramos, Grandal ?) or a Swiss Army knife guy to share 1b with Pujols (MGonzalez?)....

I agree, most dont.  I hope they are right, i truly do, but it doesnt make logical sense to me to assume its a done deal, till the ink is on the paper.  There are far more reason to assume he wont, than to assume he will.