Angels have more money to spend than we think?

[angelsnationtalk]

Has anyone seen the recent article written by the Angels beat writer? Read it HERE

Yes, I’ve read the articles and tax articles from MLBTR showing that we are really paying more than that. But, if our beat writer is reporting that then that means we’ve got about $73.85 million to spend. And if we’re rumored to have Calhoun open for a trade, then that’s a max of $83.85. That’s a lot of spending room. 

Again, I have read the articles that show otherwise. I’m just showing what is being said. 

[Angelsjunky]

I'm really not sure where you're getting that number. Here's a quote from the article:

"The club's Opening Day payroll has hovered around $165 million in each of the past three seasons, so the Angels will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million to spend if they want to maintain that level in 2019."

 

[Second Base]

Just now, angelsnationtalk said:

Has anyone seen the recent article written by the Angels beat writer? Read it HERE

Yes, I’ve read the articles and tax articles from MLBTR showing that we are really paying more than that. But, if our beat writer is reporting that then that means we’ve got about $73.85 million to spend. And if we’re rumored to have Calhoun open for a trade, then that’s a max of $83.85. That’s a lot of spending room. 

Again, I have read the articles that show otherwise. I’m just showing what is being said. 

I'm just not a fan of Maria Guardardo, so I don't really ever quote her.  She's a fine writer, but her takes on Angels baseball lacked a basic understanding of the game, or the history of the organization, or even Billy Eppler's team building habits. I don't know if she was mailing it in, or we've simply been spoiled by the likes of Sam Miller, Fletch, Alden Gonzalez.... 

Personally, I don't think it's a huge loss she's going back to cover Bay Area sports. 

But anyway, as far as the Angels are concerned, everything I've seen from Eppler so far suggests that he's attempting to save money wherever he can. With the regular inflation of payroll and contracts coming off the books as well as letting go Parker and Shoe, I'm thinking the Angels are planning to spend 40 million. 

They need two starting pitchers as well as a catcher, so if I didn't know any better, I'd say Billy Eppler was preparing to surprise some people and spend big on a target or two. 

[angelsnationtalk]

11 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm really not sure where you're getting that number. Here's a quote from the article:

"The club's Opening Day payroll has hovered around $165 million in each of the past three seasons, so the Angels will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million to spend if they want to maintain that level in 2019."

 

The sentence above states their totals are $132.15M. Which yes, leaves $30million to spend if they want to maintain their $165M budget. So basically the article states we’ve got money, and tons of it IF we wanted to go to the $206M mark. 

[angelsnationtalk]

14 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I'm just not a fan of Maria Guardardo, so I don't really ever quote her.  She's a fine writer, but her takes on Angels baseball lacked a basic understanding of the game, or the history of the organization, or even Billy Eppler's team building habits. I don't know if she was mailing it in, or we've simply been spoiled by the likes of Sam Miller, Fletch, Alden Gonzalez.... 

Personally, I don't think it's a huge loss she's going back to cover Bay Area sports. 

But anyway, as far as the Angels are concerned, everything I've seen from Eppler so far suggests that he's attempting to save money wherever he can. With the regular inflation of payroll and contracts coming off the books as well as letting go Parker and Shoe, I'm thinking the Angels are planning to spend 40 million. 

They need two starting pitchers as well as a catcher, so if I didn't know any better, I'd say Billy Eppler was preparing to surprise some people and spend big on a target or two. 

Yeah, I doubt the Angels blow it open to $206M. But I agree, Eppler has something up his sleeve and I still feel like Arte will push for something as well. I’m not saying Harper, but something big. Arte knows Trout is itching for a run in the playoffs. He’d be stupid not to have some fun and spoil the team for Trout. 

[Pancake Bear]

3 minutes ago, angelsnationtalk said:

The sentence above states their totals are $132.15M. Which yes, leaves $30million to spend if they want to maintain their $165M budget. So basically the article states we’ve got money, and tons of it IF we wanted to go to the $206M mark. 

The luxury tax isn't the threshold, per Fletcher. Could they spend to that point? Yes, but until they do, I wouldn't expect it. Realism helps with avoiding disappointment.

[Lou]

20 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I'm just not a fan of Maria Guardardo,

she's horrible 

[popo85]

6 minutes ago, Lou said:

she's horrible 

but is she hott?

[angelsnationtalk]

8 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

The luxury tax isn't the threshold, per Fletcher. Could they spend to that point? Yes, but until they do, I wouldn't expect it. Realism helps with avoiding disappointment.

I wouldn’t expect it either. But its fun to dream.

[angelsnationtalk]

I think what all of us Angels fans want is for the Angels to do everything they can to get Trout in the playoffs. We finished 80-82. Haven’t smelt the postseason since 2014. To make it worse? We haven’t won a playoff game since 2009. Trout has never won a playoff game and the front office owes him that. I don’t think Trout is the kind of player to chase money. He wants a ring and he will go somewhere else if that makes his chances better. 

Angels need to make it sweet. Realllllll sweet.

[UndertheHalo]

The 30 million figure is just operating on the idea that they won’t go over the tax threshold.  There’s no hard budget for the team.  The Angels *can* afford any player they want.  If they need to bid with the Dodgers or Yankees or Red Sox they can.  They’re one of the most financially healthy teams in baseball.  They have one of the most lucrative TV deals in baseball.   It’s a matter of whether ownership decides to do it or not.  It makes sense to not hemorrhage money paying the dumb luxury tax.  It’s something that any smart team should be over only when you think you’re close to winning.  Obviously the Angels haven’t been close for a while. 

 I’m not sure I buy that they’re seriously looking at Machado.  But I guess he’s about as good a FA as we’ll see come to market.  So if they went over for him, it wouldn’t be that surprising I guess. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Lou]

20 minutes ago, popo85 said:

but is she hott?

[Second Base]

28 minutes ago, popo85 said:

but is she hott?

[floplag]

Our "budget" has nothing to do with the tax.  The original 30M figure as i recall put us up around 185-ish, which is a long way under the actual cap.
We could easily spend near twice the 30-40M and still not pay tax.  
 

[Docwaukee]

18 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

The 30 million figure is just operating on the idea that they won’t go over the tax threshold.  There’s no hard budget for the team.  The Angels *can* afford any player they want.  If they need to bid with the Dodgers or Yankees or Red Sox they can.  They’re one of the most financially healthy teams in baseball.  They have one of the most lucrative TV deals in baseball.   It’s a matter of whether ownership decides to do it or not.  It makes sense to not hemorrhage money paying the dumb luxury tax.  It’s something that any smart team should be over only when you think you’re close to winning.  Obviously the Angels haven’t been close for a while. 

 I’m not sure I buy that they’re seriously looking at Machado.  But I guess he’s about as good a FA as we’ll see come to market.  So if they went over for him, it wouldn’t be that surprising I guess. 

the AAV of current Angel contracts is close to 20 mil below current payroll so theoretically, we could add 65 mil in AAV and still be below the 206.  

So the 30m they're seemingly willing to spend has more to do with the actual amount of payroll and not the AAV version for the CBT.  

As @Jeff Fletcher has mentioned previously, they could theoretically rework Trout's deal to add some AAV (maybe 6 mil) yet pay him less than the 34 they're paying him for 2019.  And then if they signed Machado for an AAV of about 30 yet pay him less than that in the first year.  So if they were both paid 45m total in 2019, that would be an addition of 11m in payroll for the year yet the AAV would go up by about 30 from Machado and 16 from Trout for a total of 46.  But, they'd also get an AAV credit because they've taken an AAV hit of $96m over the last four years on his contract yet paid him 76m over that time.  So it would be -20 from that 46.  So Machado at 10/300 paid 20m in 2019 and Trout at 10/400 paid 25m in 2019 would hit the AAV for about 26 mil in 2019.  Which would leave about 39m in threshold space for this year.  Chewing up 11m of payroll essentially puts the team about back to even on the true amount after getting rid of Shoe, Alvarez, and Parker while adding La Stella and Garcia.  Maybe about 5m in the hole from the original 30m we thought they'd be able to spend.  

If they add Happ at 2/26, and Ramos at 2/20, they'd still have some room left to add one more pitcher.  Hopefully, that would leave them some room should they need to add at the deadline.  

The problem is that the calculation become a bit of a shit show in 2020 and 2021 while Albert is still on the books.  The AAV number doesn't change for the fixed contracts, but the arb numbers will rise which impacts that some and the total payroll number will go up considerably with raises to Simmons, Upton, Pujols and presumably Trout and Machado.  

Or you could keep Trout and Manny at 45m combined for another year or even two but that means starting in 2022 you are likely going to have to start making up some ground for those two where their salaries could be pushing 80-85 mil combined.  That's a pretty ugly number and around half of what our current anticipated payroll is for 2019.  It's just hard for me to imagine that happening without considerable impact to the teams flexibility.  Which is why I just don't think it will happen unless Albert magically comes off the books or Arte decides to expand payroll for awhile.  

[Docwaukee]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Our "budget" has nothing to do with the tax.  The original 30M figure as i recall put us up around 185-ish, which is a long way under the actual cap.
We could easily spend near twice the 30-40M and still not pay tax.  
 

see above.  

If Arte really did commit to expanding payroll, the real trouble likely come in 2021 and possible even 2020.  At that point, we're really going to need cheap contributions from the farm system.  Unless of course Arte says f it and shoves all in for the next 2-3 year which I don't think he'll do.  

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

8 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I'm really not sure where you're getting that number. Here's a quote from the article:

"The club's Opening Day payroll has hovered around $165 million in each of the past three seasons, so the Angels will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million to spend if they want to maintain that level in 2019."

 

But if they want to spend as much as possible and still stay under the tax threshold that would give them at least another $30M.

[Jeff Fletcher]

There are still some of you who can’t stop writing about “staying under the tax” as if it’s the ultimate goal.

”Staying within the budget” is the goal.

The secondary goal is “signing good contracts,” in other words not getting screwed by another Pujols deal. 

I think the secondary goal is important to bear in mind because he’s probably already planning to get screwed, to some extent, by a new Trout deal. 

 

 

[Blarg]

10 hours ago, popo85 said:

but is she hott?

[Hubs]

I don’t understand where people get this $30 figure, other than blind estimation. Which Fletcher has admitted.

but I REALLY DON’T understand the confusion about existing payroll numbers. Between Cot’s Baseball Contracts and MLB Trade Rumors Arbitration Numbers there should be no confusion.. ever.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-west/la-angels/

and here are links to the google sheets they did for AAV and Cash Payroll 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJEzXDdi1FoAVCxpssrNq04unxs39JIJg6CRn-IPM1c/pubhtml

[Blarg]

Fletcher's point is there is a budget that is independent of the luxury tax threshold. People who want Eppler to spend like Dipoto did his first two years ignore the budget and focus on the maximum dollars that can be spent up to the cap. 

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Dochalo said:

see above.  

If Arte really did commit to expanding payroll, the real trouble likely come in 2021 and possible even 2020.  At that point, we're really going to need cheap contributions from the farm system.  Unless of course Arte says f it and shoves all in for the next 2-3 year which I don't think he'll do.  

Correct, but isnt that when they are due?  Isnt that when we expect the bulk of them to be in Ana?  Isnt that the plan in any scenario whether we spend now or not? 

[floplag]

39 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Fletcher's point is there is a budget that is independent of the luxury tax threshold. People who want Eppler to spend like Dipoto did his first two years ignore the budget and focus on the maximum dollars that can be spent up to the cap. 

Thats actually not necessarily true at all. 
What people want is for this team to win in the Trout era and hopefully keep Trout.   
No one is asking for stupidity, no one is asking for a ton of trades, all any of us that are pro making moves are asking is an effort to win on the short term to go along with the long term plan. 
It doesn't have to be DiPoto-esque at all. It doesn't have to be a choice between now and then.  It will have to be spending more than the stated budget limits though to achieve it.  
This is literally all anyone who has suggested taking action for 19 has said.  
It isnt accurate to characterize is as dipoto or any other exaggeration designed to belittle and dismiss it.  

[Dtwncbad]

I don't think anyone wants the Angels to FOOLISHLY spend on bad contracts.  Let's agree everyone would like solid contracts and smart contracts.

As long as they are smart, solid contracts wouldn't most fans prefer the Angels be willing to spend to the luxury tax limit to put the best team on the field?

Obviously that doesn't mean you waste money!  If you had All Stars at every position and it only cost $100m, then duh, don't waste money.

I am just saying the Angels are a premium franchise in a major market, and I would expect them to more likely push the envelope on spending rather than hold back withal a budget set considerably lower than the tax threshold.

(Now watch even with the overexplanation of the point, someone will say "No, there is no need to waste money.")

 

 

[WeatherWonk]

Isnt the 30 mil figure simply a reflection of the Angels starting the past couple seasons with a payroll around 165 million? Isn't that why this number keeps coming up? A trend has been established.

And doesnt it make sense that you start the season well below where you want to end up (payroll wise) in case you decide at the the trading deadlines that you want to go out and get someone more expensive who can better position you for a playoff run? If you start too close to the budgetary figure that is your theoretical max, you have little wiggle room.

Besides, one article I read recently pointed out that the Angels could exceed the luxury tax threshold the next couple years and the hit would be only 5 mil one year and 10 mil the next. Or something close to that. It's the third year you want to avoid.