Current payroll and where we stand

[ettin]

1 hour 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.  

 

1 hour 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

We have about $30M in actual team payroll (puts us at about $190M-$195M) available in all probability. Average Annual Value is about $17M-18M less so we have additional room there which is why at least one or more extensions seem really plausible this off-season.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

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.

I bet they're not strapped.  I bet they're flush.  

It's just risk management.  Arte spends an extra $20 mil per season with what percent chance that he's going to recoup that and make additional profit on top of it?  

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, ettin said:

 

We have about $30M in actual team payroll (puts us at about $190M-$195M) available in all probability. Average Annual Value is about $17M-18M less so we have additional room there which is why at least one or more extensions seem really plausible this off-season.

and that includes benefits I'm assuming.  

[ettin]

Just now, Dochalo said:

and that includes benefits I'm assuming.  

Yes at my value of about $8M-9M for Benefits. If it is closer to $14M or so as Jeff has stated from his conversations then you have to adjust it about $5M. So no lower than $25M to spend based on the assumption we are going no higher than about $10M-$12M over our total payroll number from 2018. Basically I am basing this on a $190M-195M payroll number for 2019. Adjust according based on your view of the Benefits number and how much you think Moreno will authorize to increase team payroll for next season.

[Docwaukee]

4 minutes ago, ettin said:

Yes at my value of about $8M-9M for Benefits. If it is closer to $14M or so as Jeff has stated from his conversations then you have to adjust it about $5M. So no lower than $25M to spend based on the assumption we are going no higher than about $10M-$12M over our total payroll number from 2018. Basically I am basing this on a $190M-195M payroll number for 2019. Adjust according based on your view of the Benefits number and how much you think Moreno will authorize to increase team payroll for next season.

when they list payroll on various sites it actually doesn't include benefits.  It's just player salaries so we'll actually be within 5m or so of last year if we spend 30m.  

Last year, player salaries were about $175.  plus 13m in benies puts us at around 188m.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q7dlNaSqB4vip6QD88MCaahpPjiZrS7dgOam_TrElLg/edit#gid=0

This really ought to explain it. 

Right now for 2019 they have committed about $164M in terms of actual payroll (including arb salaries, 0-3s, bonuses and benefits)

The CBT (Competitive Balancer Tax, ie luxury tax) is calculated based on the Average Annual Value (AAV) of your contracts. That's so you can't circumvent the tax by the way you distribute the money throughout the deal. (You can, of course, do that to manage your budget, but not to avoid the tax). Anyway, according to the CBT, their current payroll is $147M (including arb salaries, 0-3, bonuses and benefits).

The luxury tax threshold is $206M. So, as you can see, they can't get anywhere close to that, without laying out an actual payroll for 2019 of about $225M, which would be way more than they've ever spent.

The reason we're suddenly talking about actual payroll instead of luxury tax is because it's only been in the last year that's been there a big difference, because Trout and Pujols suddenly got to the heavy end of their contracts, when their salary exceeded the average. Trout made $20M in 2017 and $34 in 2018, because 2018 was the first year he would have been a free agent. The AAV of Trout's deal is $24M. Simmons and Calhoun are now on the back end. All of them are making more than their AAV.

One of the best ways for the Angels to balance this is to re-do Trout's deal, so he gets paid less now. They have a lot more room in terms of AAV under the CBT than they do in actual cash flow. If they rip up his contract and give him a new one that has an AAV of, say, 33M (12/400?) but pays him only $27M or something this year. Now they are saving $7M  in terms of actual payroll (Trout's salary goes from 34M to 27M) and adding $9M in CBT payroll (his AAV goes from 24M to 33M). But that's OK, because they have 60M of space in the CBT.

Why would Trout give up $7M in 2019? To make the 2019 Angels better, and of course to get paid a bazillion dollars later.

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

I bet they're not strapped.  I bet they're flush.  

It's just risk management.  Arte spends an extra $20 mil per season with what percent chance that he's going to recoup that and make additional profit on top of it?  

Of course it is, but how much do the get in playoff shares?    Added revenues from concessions for more people at games?  i would say the odds are pretty good he gets most if not all and more of it back not to mention fan capital and impression with players that we are more than a vacation destination. 
 
None of its a guarantee, nothing in this game can ever give him that, it comes down to make the effort, or dont... take the risk, or dont.  This is what i meant when i said i felt Epp lacks boldness, i havent yet seen him take any real risk that didnt have an obvious reward.  

That 20 mil may end us a net loss of a few, it it may buy a WS title... one thing is for sure not spending it guarantees more early tee times.

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, floplag said:

Of course it is, but how much do the get in playoff shares?    Added revenues from concessions for more people at games?  i would say the odds are pretty good he gets most if not all and more of it back not to mention fan capital and impression with players that we are more than a vacation destination. 
 
None of its a guarantee, nothing in this game can ever give him that, it comes down to make the effort, or dont... take the risk, or dont.  This is what i meant when i said i felt Epp lacks boldness, i havent yet seen him take any real risk that didnt have an obvious reward.  

That 20 mil may end us a net loss of a few, it it may buy a WS title... one thing is for sure not spending it guarantees more early tee times.

not if they play one game and it's away.  and that's what he'd be staring down the barrel at.  Being bold in the face of insurmountable odds is noble but it can be construed as stupid.  When you've only got $100 in your pocket, if you drop it all on quick picks, you're an idiot.  But if you've got $100 k in the bank then buying few lotto tickets could make things fun.  

That's an extreme example of course, but because of all the risks we took in the past, our pockets were empty.  Empty of money.  Empty of prospects.  

Eppler is building his bankroll.  I absolutely see him being more aggressive when that reserve is at a level he's more comfortable gambling some of it away.  If Arte wants to stake him and move things forward a little more quickly, then great.  I just don't think he will.  In fact, the reason he likely hasn't been more aggressive is that he absolutely knows that Arte won't.  

Also, I'd like to hear some examples of how he could have been more bold.  There's a lot of crap deals on free agents floating around from the since Billy has been our GM.  As far as trades are concerned, he took the one asset he had in Newcomb and turned it into Simmons.  That was pretty damn bold if you ask me.  After that, he had nothing left.  

[floplag]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q7dlNaSqB4vip6QD88MCaahpPjiZrS7dgOam_TrElLg/edit#gid=0

This really ought to explain it. 

Right now for 2019 they have committed about $164M in terms of actual payroll (including arb salaries, 0-3s, bonuses and benefits)

The CBT (Competitive Balancer Tax, ie luxury tax) is calculated based on the Average Annual Value (AAV) of your contracts. That's so you can't circumvent the tax by the way you distribute the money throughout the deal. (You can, of course, do that to manage your budget, but not to avoid the tax). Anyway, according to the CBT, their current payroll is $147M (including arb salaries, 0-3, bonuses and benefits).

The luxury tax threshold is $206M. So, as you can see, they can't get anywhere close to that, without laying out an actual payroll for 2019 of about $225M, which would be way more than they've ever spent.

The reason we're suddenly talking about actual payroll instead of luxury tax is because it's only been in the last year that's been there a big difference, because Trout and Pujols suddenly got to the heavy end of their contracts, when their salary exceeded the average. Trout made $20M in 2017 and $34 in 2018, because 2018 was the first year he would have been a free agent. The AAV of Trout's deal is $24M. Simmons and Calhoun are now on the back end. All of them are making more than their AAV.

One of the best ways for the Angels to balance this is to re-do Trout's deal, so he gets paid less now. They have a lot more room in terms of AAV under the CBT than they do in actual cash flow. If they rip up his contract and give him a new one that has an AAV of, say, 33M (12/400?) but pays him only $27M or something this year. Now they are saving $7M  in terms of actual payroll (Trout's salary goes from 34M to 27M) and adding $9M in CBT payroll (his AAV goes from 24M to 33M). But that's OK, because they have 60M of space in the CBT.

Why would Trout give up $7M in 2019? To make the 2019 Angels better, and of course to get paid a bazillion dollars later.

Thank you for this Jeff
it clears up a few things and possibly muddies a couple others, but im going to let it go as it seems moot. 
My one real takeaway from this though is how this team with a favorable TV deal and 3M attendance every season can possibly have revenue issues.   Thats hard to fathom.

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

not if they play one game and it's away.  and that's what he'd be staring down the barrel at.  Being bold in the face of insurmountable odds is noble but it can be construed as stupid.  When you've only got $100 in your pocket, if you drop it all on quick picks, you're an idiot.  But if you've got $100 k in the bank then buying few lotto tickets could make things fun.  

That's an extreme example of course, but because of all the risks we took in the past, our pockets were empty.  Empty of money.  Empty of prospects.  

Eppler is building his bankroll.  I absolutely see him being more aggressive when that reserve is at a level he's more comfortable gambling some of it away.  If Arte wants to stake him and move things forward a little more quickly, then great.  I just don't think he will.  In fact, the reason he likely hasn't been more aggressive is that he absolutely knows that Arte won't.  

Also, I'd like to hear some examples of how he could have been more bold.  There's a lot of crap deals on free agents floating around from the since Billy has been our GM.  As far as trades are concerned, he took the one asset he had in Newcomb and turned it into Simmons.  That was pretty damn bold if you ask me.  After that, he had nothing left.  

WE could both run out endless analogies, but no outcome is guaranteed in any of them, save for the fact that if you dont play you cant win.   
I dont see how we can be on empty in money, and were certainly not empty in prospects, if we are how is 21 better again? 
I get it, i understand what you are saying, but i cant help but feel as though you are assuming the best case for the future, im being far more realistic.  You could be right, the kids all develop, we re-sign Trout/Simmons, and become active in 21 to fill holes... then again if youre wrong, were completely screwed.  As with most things the reality will probably be in the middle somewhere.  
My one thing in all of this though is a simply dont think its our only option unless somehow this team truly has money problems, which i find extremely hard to believe and if true casts a giant shadow on the now and the future.  

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

Thank you for this Jeff
it clears up a few things and possibly muddies a couple others, but im going to let it go as it seems moot. 
My one real takeaway from this though is how this team with a favorable TV deal and 3M attendance every season can possibly have revenue issues.   Thats hard to fathom.

they don't have revenue issues.  they have a budget that puts money into the investors pockets.  According to forbes, they are debt free so Arte hasn't borrowed against the team's equity to pay for players.  He runs one hell of a business I think.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

they don't have revenue issues.  they have a budget that puts money into the investors pockets.  According to forbes, they are debt free so Arte hasn't borrowed against the team's equity to pay for players.  He runs one hell of a business I think.  

Well youll forgive me but im a lot more concerned about the product on the field than investors pockets.   If we can afford for example to spend 60, which would absolutely puts us in the playoff mix, and we can absolutely afford, but dont in the name of investor profits, how am i as a fan supposed to react to that?  

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

WE could both run out endless analogies, but no outcome is guaranteed in any of them, save for the fact that if you dont play you cant win.   
I dont see how we can be on empty in money, and were certainly not empty in prospects, if we are how is 21 better again? 
I get it, i understand what you are saying, but i cant help but feel as though you are assuming the best case for the future, im being far more realistic.  You could be right, the kids all develop, we re-sign Trout/Simmons, and become active in 21 to fill holes... then again if youre wrong, were completely screwed.  As with most things the reality will probably be in the middle somewhere.  
My one thing in all of this though is a simply dont think its our only option unless somehow this team truly has money problems, which i find extremely hard to believe and if true casts a giant shadow on the now and the future.  

I'm not assuming the best case scenario for the future.  I see that we're broken now and still under construction.  I see that the best way to build a winner is via farm talent that becomes cheap viable major league talent.  I am hopeful we are on our way there.  I am more confident in that than I am in the prospect of turning the current team into a winner and if we did we would chew up every last resource to get there for a mere 2 year window.   

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Dochalo said:

I'm not assuming the best case scenario for the future.  I see that we're broken now and still under construction.  I see that the best way to build a winner is via farm talent that becomes cheap viable major league talent.  I am hopeful we are on our way there.  I am more confident in that than I am in the prospect of turning the current team into a winner and if we did we would chew up every last resource to get there for a mere 2 year window.   

Youre hopeful for the future, as am i, i just see no reason we cant have both a future and a present.   But i guess the investors will be happy, screw the fans   

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Well youll forgive me but im a lot more concerned about the product on the field than investors pockets.   If we can afford for example to spend 60, which would absolutely puts us in the playoff mix, and we can absolutely afford, but dont in the name of investor profits, how am i as a fan supposed to react to that?  

react however you'd like, but it's the real world.  Arte is probably behind the scenes saying that the 8th highest payroll should be enough to build a winner.  He's got Trout so the fans are going to show up so he could have not spent 100+ mil on justin upton or almost 40m on Zack Cozart or taken on Simmons money or so on and so forth.  It could have been Trout, Pujols and a bunch of srubs for the last 3 years.  I don't blame fans for being frustrated, but I also don't blame Arte for running the business as he does.  

For me, I want Trout and Simmons stay and I want to see a bunch of home grown talent fill in around him.  In the meantime, I'd like to see them fill some holes via free agency in order to make the team better short term as long as it doesn't handcuff the budget long term or block key prospects from getting their shot.  Would I like to see Arte spend more in 2019 and 2020 until we can get some cheap help?  Absolutely.  Does it frustrate me that he's not going to?  Sure.  But at the end of the day it doesn't change much in terms of how I operate as a fan.  

[Docwaukee]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

Youre hopeful for the future, as am i, i just see no reason we cant have both a future and a present.   But i guess the investors will be happy, screw the fans   

Jerry and Arte screwed the fans starting 7 years ago by going with the approach they did.  Would it have been nice to see Arte make up for some of those bad decisions by expanding the budget a bit in order to bridge the game to the next way of young major league talent?  Yes.  Are the fans still paying to watch the games regardless?  Yep.  

We, as fans, got hosed because of poor decision making.  Not from a lack of money.  If the fans want to jump ship now out of frustration, I don't blame them.  

Part of the reason I am more hopeful and focused on 2021 is that I already know they aren't going to do what I'd like to see them do for 2019 and 2020.  Why waste the mental energy and frustration on Albert sucking at 1b with no help in sight when I can dream on Adell being a star?

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

react however you'd like, but it's the real world.  Arte is probably behind the scenes saying that the 8th highest payroll should be enough to build a winner.  He's got Trout so the fans are going to show up so he could have not spent 100+ mil on justin upton or almost 40m on Zack Cozart or taken on Simmons money or so on and so forth.  It could have been Trout, Pujols and a bunch of srubs for the last 3 years.  I don't blame fans for being frustrated, but I also don't blame Arte for running the business as he does.  

For me, I want Trout and Simmons stay and I want to see a bunch of home grown talent fill in around him.  In the meantime, I'd like to see them fill some holes via free agency in order to make the team better short term as long as it doesn't handcuff the budget long term or block key prospects from getting their shot.  Would I like to see Arte spend more in 2019 and 2020 until we can get some cheap help?  Absolutely.  Does it frustrate me that he's not going to?  Sure.  But at the end of the day it doesn't change much in terms of how I operate as a fan.  

Funny part is what you just said is all i ever asked for.  The difference is i expect them to spend more if they are able to instead of asking me to wait 2 years when they arent waiting for dividend checks.
I cheer for the Angels, not the angels investors, and if im being told that the reason the angels arent winning is so that investors pocket more, thats absolutely going to affect my outlook as a fan.   I dont apologize for that.

[Angel Oracle]

32 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

they don't have revenue issues.  they have a budget that puts money into the investors pockets.  According to forbes, they are debt free so Arte hasn't borrowed against the team's equity to pay for players.  He runs one hell of a business I think.  

And it certainly beats giving a certain to decline Pujols $240 million and an already declining on and off the field Hackilton $125 million.

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

And it certainly beats giving a certain to decline Pujols $240 million and an already declining on and off the field Hackilton $125 million.

i wonder what folks here will say as trout ages... lol  assuming hes still here that is

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

i wonder what folks here will say as trout ages... lol  assuming hes still here that is

we'll say that he's the greatest Angel of all time by a lot, one of the best baseball players in baseball history and we'll consider the 400m a good investment considering Trout helped bring us 7 division titles and back to back world series championships.   

[Stradling]

We can pretend it’s 3 million fans, but the average ticket price is around $18 so that’s another $55 million plus the $150 million in TV money.  So that’s $205 million.  Then food and drinks.   Since only about 2 million actually show up to the game and dive they share in the profit of those with Legends or Aramark whoever it is these days.   Then you factor in the non player operating costs.  I also believe the Angels are on the hook for stadium upkeep of the 4th oldest stadium.  It adds up quick and it isn’t like they have some endless supply of cash.   Could he push the budget, sure, but probably not by tens of million of dollars.  

[IEAngelsfan]

12 minutes ago, floplag said:

i wonder what folks here will say as trout ages... lol  assuming hes still here that is

I hope they say that we finally had one of the all time greats drafted, groomed and play his entire career as an Angel.  That the Angels did the right thing and paid the man what he deserves to stay with our team and that we have no regrets what so ever, regardless on how he plays the last few years as an Angel.

[DMVol]

4 hours ago, Dochalo said:

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.  

2019 could give some idea about longer term...Ward, Canning, some of those guys may be ready next year...Let’s see who Eppler signs, trades for this winter, maybe another building block like Simmons.... Adell and/or Marsh, Suarez might be ready as early as 2020....Better idea a year from now where we’re going...

[Turd Ferguson]

Summary: we have room for Harper AND Machado