Official 2021-22 Hot Stove League Thread.

[Hubs]

13 hours ago, Dochalo said:

and then who if they trade Marsh for Castillo?  Ward?  

Can you imagine a lineup that includes Upton, Fletcher, a still unproven Adell and Rengifo?  

btw, just for kicks I plugged in Marsh, Sandoval and Paris into that trade doohickey and it's almost a perfect match by score.  

I think that site values Adell way lower than Marsh because he didn’t have immediate success… I think they’re much more interchangeable. I doubt they part with Sandoval but Bachman is also a pretty close comp and then they’d have to add another pitcher in addition to Jackson or Paris 

[Jeff Fletcher]

14 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

@Jeff Fletcher (or anyone), is the luxury tax number based off the estimated payroll or the projected final payroll? That's a $10M difference, so the difference between $38M and $28M.

I don't know if anyone answered this in the last four pages, but...

The luxury tax is calculated in December, after the season, using the money you actually spent.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't know if anyone answered this in the last four pages, but...

The luxury tax is calculated in December, after the season, using the money you actually spent.

Are signing bonuses calculated in the first year (since they actually spent it in the first year) or are they amortized over the length of the contract?

[Vladdy Issues]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't know if anyone answered this in the last four pages, but...

The luxury tax is calculated in December, after the season, using the money you actually spent.

So basically the Angels can carry Upton for 80% - 90% of the PLAYING year and then trade him with a prospect to another team to show that they carried all the money for him for the season (even though he played for the Angels for most of the time)... lowering their payroll below the luxury tax mark?

[Jeff Fletcher]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Are signing bonuses calculated in the first year (since they actually spent it in the first year) or are they amortized over the length of the contract?

The AAV for the contracts is the total value divided by the total years, so that includes the signing bonuses.

[Jeff Fletcher]

19 minutes ago, StandOutRealty said:

So basically the Angels can carry Upton for 80% - 90% of the PLAYING year and then trade him with a prospect to another team to show that they carried all the money for him for the season (even though he played for the Angels for most of the time)... lowering their payroll below the luxury tax mark?

Well I don't know about your math since the trading deadline is basically at the 67 percent, and I don't know how much of Upton's salary could be unloaded, but in general your point is correct.

A better example would be Andrew Heaney. He made $6.75M last year. The Angels paid him a little over $4M of that, so their luxury tax figure for him was a little over $4M.

So, yes, you can open the season with a payroll that is projected to finish above the luxury tax and get it below by December. Obviously that's not something you'd want, though. It would mean you were out of it and dumped salary, in which case you wasted a lot of money by even being close to the luxury tax.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jeff Fletcher

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The AAV for the contracts is the total value divided by the total years, so that includes the signing bonuses.

That’s what I thought but that seems to conflict with just calculating what they actually for the year in December (since a signing bonus may not have happened in that specific past year).

I suppose it is the AAV as you describe, and the December “final” calculation is really about accounting for whatever salary adds or subtracts from any in-season transactions. . . since you can’t know those adjustments until the season is over.

 

[Angelsjunky]

32 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don't know if anyone answered this in the last four pages, but...

The luxury tax is calculated in December, after the season, using the money you actually spent.

OK, thanks - thus the buffer zone, which allows in-season moves.

[Angelsjunky]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

The AAV for the contracts is the total value divided by the total years, so that includes the signing bonuses.

I wonder why they bother back-loading contracts, then? I mean, I would think the main benefit would be in relation to the luxury tax. But I suppose it also could have to do with yearly operation costs and maybe inflation, at least on the longer contracts.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

I wonder why they bother back-loading contracts, then? I mean, I would think the main benefit would be in relation to the luxury tax. But I suppose it also could have to do with yearly operation costs and maybe inflation, at least on the longer contracts.

To manage annual cash flow.

[Jeff Fletcher]

11 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

That’s what I thought but that seems to conflict with just calculating what they actually for the year in December (since a signing bonus may not have happened in that specific past year).

I suppose it is the AAV as you describe, and the December “final” calculation is really about accounting for whatever salary adds or subtracts from any in-season transactions. . . since you can’t know those adjustments until the season is over.

 

The "final calculation" really just changes when players come and go from the roster and with bonuses and stuff. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

10 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I wonder why they bother back-loading contracts, then? I mean, I would think the main benefit would be in relation to the luxury tax. But I suppose it also could have to do with yearly operation costs and maybe inflation, at least on the longer contracts.

As @Dtwncbadsaid, it's for annual cash flow. It would be a pretty big loophole in the system if you could circumvent the luxury tax rules by the way a contract was paid out. 

[Dtwncbad]

28 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I wonder why they bother back-loading contracts, then? I mean, I would think the main benefit would be in relation to the luxury tax. But I suppose it also could have to do with yearly operation costs and maybe inflation, at least on the longer contracts.

Maybe it’s obvious but imagine you had a new broadcasting package starting in 2023 where your revenue was going up substantially, or imagine as an owner that you were moving into a new ballpark in three years. . . 

Those are pretty big details but even a combination of medium and small details in running your business could make you interested in making adjustments to the cash flow of expenses to better match you cash flow of revenues.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

15 hours ago, mmc said:

 

Actually, Not a BAD Contract at all... 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

15 hours ago, Junkballer said:

I doubt that he would've signed here after being traded; they felt they needed a closer to at least provide some fan interest in a lost season, and the plan was to burden him with a draft pick to give them an edge in re-signing him and it happened to work out.  Had he been traded they would have been pursuing a Graveman or Knebel, which, not bad either, we would have less confidence in.  There are a lot of head scratchers with this org but they played this right, and if PM gets an adequate starter (read as able to bump Suarez down), SS and vet BP arm, this team is better than going into last season.  Those calling for immediate firing of PM for not trading RI at the deadline, Your Papers Pleaze. 

I don't remember anyone saying he should be fired.... Just that it was a horrible mistake to not trade him if you couldn't re-sign him... So, obviously, Either Perry had a pretty good idea he could. Or, he knew eventually once everything was said and done he could talk Arte into a multi-year extension....

[Angelsfan1984]

4 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

I don't remember anyone saying he should be fired.... Just that it was a horrible mistake to not trade him if you couldn't re-sign him... So, obviously, Either Perry had a pretty good idea he could. Or, he knew eventually once everything was said and done he could talk Arte into a multi-year extension....

Iglesias seemed like an obvious pivot. There's no way it was true he was the number 1 priority for them if they made a 30+m offer to Scherzer and instantly signed Thor.

[T.G.]

7 minutes ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

Iglesias seemed like an obvious pivot. There's no way it was true he was the number 1 priority for them if they made a 30+m offer to Scherzer and instantly signed Thor.

Does it really matter?

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

14 hours ago, zenmaster said:

Hopefully the comments about Lorenzen being in the rotation mean he will be an opener and not an actual starter they expect to go 5+ innings. 

 

 

Oh kid, he is going to be the #4 or #5 every 6th day starter and be expected to go 3 1/3rd to 4 2/3rds a start 5 would be exciting!!!! Your hopes of an opener no longer applies.

[mmc]

4 hours ago, Stradling said:

I guess we won’t lose Stefanic

 

[ThisismineScios]

When it's all settled and the emotions wear off (of which I had plenty), I don't think there's any reason to think they are done. There was a rush to get things done, but let's compare the teams that made huge pushes and the teams that didn't do much of anything (that normally would):

Did: Rangers, Tigers, Mariners, Mets, Marlins, Blue Jays

Didn't: Dodgers, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Braves

Why do we think everything had to be done the last two weeks? There are quite a few smart teams that did very little. They know, despite February being a long ways away, that there will be plenty of opportunity to get guys then. 

Of course we wanted the Angels to get Ray, Stroman, Gray, and every other pitcher available. And one of those guys would have filled a front rotation spot, but all have ?'s. But would it have been the best move to make? Can't we still find another good pitcher and a quality SS when the strike ends? 

It's clear the Angels made an offer to Scherzer. Let's assume it was only $30 million / year. That would have taken them over last year's salary by itself, and it's pretty clear they wanted to sign Iglesias no matter what. Somebody said it was a pivot? Huh? With Trout, Maddon, and others calling him to come back and offering a QO to a reliever, limiting other offers? Arte sucks, and I can't stand him, but as I've been preaching there is no way, none, that we are going into next season with a lower payroll than 2021. Not happening. There's also zero reason to front load RI's contract except to save on spending for 2022. So we will spend when we come back. Remember, Maddon was asked if Detmers would be in the rotation next year. His immediate response was we have to aim higher than that--we have to if we want to contend. Guess what? Right now, Detmers would probably be our #6. Which means most likely they are not going to go into the season with the rotation as is. And if you can use your resources wisely by getting a better SS than Rengifo/Wade, getting another bullpen piece, and a mid-rotation starter, we are overall a much better team for it. 

[mmc]

6 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

When it's all settled and the emotions wear off (of which I had plenty), I don't think there's any reason to think they are done. There was a rush to get things done, but let's compare the teams that made huge pushes and the teams that didn't do much of anything (that normally would):

Did: Rangers, Tigers, Mariners, Mets, Marlins, Blue Jays

Didn't: Dodgers, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Braves

Why do we think everything had to be done the last two weeks? There are quite a few smart teams that did very little. They know, despite February being a long ways away, that there will be plenty of opportunity to get guys then. 

Of course we wanted the Angels to get Ray, Stroman, Gray, and every other pitcher available. And one of those guys would have filled a front rotation spot, but all have ?'s. But would it have been the best move to make? Can't we still find another good pitcher and a quality SS when the strike ends? 

It's clear the Angels made an offer to Scherzer. Let's assume it was only $30 million / year. That would have taken them over last year's salary by itself, and it's pretty clear they wanted to sign Iglesias no matter what. Somebody said it was a pivot? Huh? With Trout, Maddon, and others calling him to come back and offering a QO to a reliever, limiting other offers? Arte sucks, and I can't stand him, but as I've been preaching there is no way, none, that we are going into next season with a lower payroll than 2021. Not happening. There's also zero reason to front load RI's contract except to save on spending for 2022. So we will spend when we come back. Remember, Maddon was asked if Detmers would be in the rotation next year. His immediate response was we have to aim higher than that--we have to if we want to contend. Guess what? Right now, Detmers would probably be our #6. Which means most likely they are not going to go into the season with the rotation as is. And if you can use your resources wisely by getting a better SS than Rengifo/Wade, getting another bullpen piece, and a mid-rotation starter, we are overall a much better team for it. 

I get your point but look at the list of teams you put.  All the teams that you listed that were aggressive early did not make the playoffs last year, whereas all the teams you put in "didn't" did.  Now which category does that put us in?  I also agree with you that they aren't done but there's little reason for us not to be aggressive early to actually improve.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, mmc said:

All the teams that you listed that were aggressive early did not make the playoffs last year,

How many of those teams are making the playoffs next year?  I say 2 at the most.

[mmc]

4 minutes ago, Lou said:

How many of those teams are making the playoffs next year?  I say 2 at the most.

Mets and the Blue Jays are who I'd have getting in so far, with the Mariners being right on the bubble.  All of those teams don't seem to be done though so we'll see.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, mmc said:

Mets and the Blue Jays are who I'd have getting in so far, with the Mariners being right on the bubble.  All of those teams don't seem to be done though so we'll see.

Yep, I'd say Toronto and maybe the Mets.

[Angelsfan1984]

1 hour ago, True Grich said:

Does it really matter?

Does anything we discuss on here?