OC Register: Angels reach deals with all remaining arbitration-eligible players

[AngelsWin.com]

The Angels will extend their streak to eight consecutive years without going to an arbitration hearing after the club agreed to terms with all its remaining arbitration-eligible players on Friday.

Pitchers Tyler Skaggs ($3.7 million), Andrew Heaney ($3.4 million), Cam Bedrosian ($1.75 million) and infielder Tommy La Stella ($1.35 million) all agreed to terms on Friday. Hansel Robles and Luis Garcia also agreed to unknown salaries, but both players were projected to earn around $1.5 million.

On Thursday, the Angels signed starting pitchers JC Ramírez ($1.9 million) and Nick Tropeano ($1.075 million).

The last time the Angels faced an arbitration hearing with a player was 2011, with pitcher Jered Weaver.

In addition to those eight 2019 deals, the Angels have 10 players under contract for a total of just over $142 million. The rest of the players, those not yet eligible for arbitration, will earn a total of about $5 million to $6 million in 2019.

Assuming around $3 million for Robles and Garcia, the Angels’ current outlay for major league salaries is around $164 million. If bonuses, incentives and benefits are included, that figure rises to around $178 million.

In terms of the luxury tax, though, the payroll is about $161 million, including the allotment for bonuses and benefits. The luxury tax payroll is lower than their actual payroll because players like Mike Trout and Albert Pujols are making more in 2019 than their average salary, which is the figure used to calculate the luxury tax. The luxury tax threshold is $208 million this year.

Related Articles

• Angels avoid arbitration with JC Ramirez, Nick Tropeano
• Anaheim leaders propose 1-year extension to Angels’ stadium lease to give time for negotiations
• Tommy John, Jamie Moyer weigh in: Can anyone play a quarter century in MLB?
• What is Southern California’s most valuable pro team among 9 franchises valued at $18 billion?
• Cuban posting system, two-way players top baseball’s storylines to watch in 2019

View the full article

[floplag]

According to the post by @Jeff Fletcher we are at about 161M for purposes of luxury tax levels.  The threshold for this year is 208M.  If you do the math we are 47M under that level as of this moment.  40freaking7 million.  Let that sink in for a minute.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

According to the post by @Jeff Fletcher we are at about 161M for purposes of luxury tax levels.  The threshold for this year is 208M.  If you do the math we are 47M under that level as of this moment.  40freaking7 million.  Let that sink in for a minute.  

Forget the luxury tax. I’ve said this a million billion times. 

What matters is the amount of money they spend. Period. 

In order to get their luxury tax payroll to $208M they would need to spend about $223M or something this year. That’s a huge jump.

The Angels budget is based on the Angels revenue and expenses, which has nothing to do with the luxury tax. 

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Forget the luxury tax. I’ve said this a million billion times. 

What matters is the amount of money they spend. Period. 

In order to get their luxury tax payroll to $208M they would need to spend about $223M or something this year. That’s a huge jump.

The Angels budget is based on the Angels revenue and expenses, which has nothing to do with the luxury tax. 

I understand that, but i find it hard to believe based on everything we know thats the best they can do based on what is known and yes a lot of assumption.

[Jeff Fletcher]

14 minutes ago, floplag said:

I understand that, but i find it hard to believe based on everything we know thats the best they can do based on what is known and yes a lot of assumption.

Ok. Assume away. 

But instead of saying “the Angels should spend more because the luxury tax is x,” you should say “the Angels should spend more because I think they should spend more.”

[Docwaukee]

50 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ok. Assume away. 

But instead of saying “the Angels should spend more because the luxury tax is x,” you should say “the Angels should spend more because I think they should spend more.”

dammit!.  I should have stated it that way 200 posts ago.  

[floplag]

Were all assuming, none of us knows the financials for certain.