Rosenthal on Angels, Qualifying Offers, Drew, Jays, Putz

[YouthofToday]

Why is the CBT stupid? It was our front office that put out stupid money to the top free agents the last 2 years before this. The CBT is doing exactly what it's intended to do. Prevent teams from buying up the best free agent every year, without penalty.

Exactly. Blame the owner and Reagins for some terrible baseball decisions (Wells). The owner for the Albert Pujols. Who knows re: Hamilton. Dipoto for Blanton.

Blame the owner for our lack of a farm system.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

bottom line is does he want to be here long term... no amount of money is going to change that if he doesnt. 

 

This is one thing that none of us knows. There may be people in the front office who do, but I doubt that anyone on this board knows Trout's intentions after his current deal ends. Maybe Trout hasn't decided, maybe he has. The problem with dealing him knowing that he intends to leave is that clubs will know that the Angels are in a desperate situation, and they won't get market value in return. I'm trying to imagine the explosion on this board if Trout is dealt and the trade doesn't bring enough to keep the team in World Series contention for 5-6 years.

 

A team interested in short term gain might make the deal, but the Angels wouldn't get a boatload in return because the destination team would know that he is leaving at the end of his current contract. A team interested in signing him long term won't trade for him, because all they have to do is wait for free agency and they can pick him up without losing any players.

 

If Trout isn't signed to an extension by the next off-season, I believe that we will have our answer, and it will be a bad thing for the club long term.

[Docwaukee]

here is an interesting nuance to the cbt that I didn't know about. 

 

"The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to the disqualified Clubs will be refunded to the payor Clubs, except that payor Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund."

 

disqualified clubs are the top 15 revenue producing teams. 

 

so if you go over the CBT two years in a row, you don't get your revenue share. 

 

Revenue share is that each team puts in 31% of their receipts and then it's all split evenly.  It's typically been about 30mil. 

 

Apparently, this starts in 2016, but not sure if there is carry over from the 2015 payroll.  Which could affect the halos substantially. 

Edited January 6, 2014 by Dochalo

[Angels Never Die]

They should trade Kendrick.

[sneaky_flute]

I think this shows how stupid the luxury tax really is. T doesn't allow teams to be loyal to players and stay competitive over the long haul. Teams have to choose between the two. The escalating penalties are punative and are aimed at selected teams. Salary numbers are not indexed for the cost of living in relation to where the player makes his money. For instance a player working and living in NYC making a million dollars a year is making considerably less than the same salary if he were playing in Texas. I am all for eliminating cap all together and would lean more to a minimum salary and non guaranteed contracts.

If you can't construct and maintain a team on a budget of 178 million dollars then you probably shouldn't be in the business. It's a reasonable threshold anywhere in the country. The Yankees routinely have a payroll north of 200 million dollars and sort of began the trend of raising free agent salary ceilings so they should be hit the hardest. 

[stormngt]

Doubt that trout would give up 3 FA years. Maybe 1 so a 125 million for 5 year deal might work, but no way he gives up 3. there are no players i can think of with his numbers that would

I have to be missing something. Trout is under club control for four more years. Year one he is guaranteed 500k. That means the next years for 124.5 million? Isn't that an average of 31 million. I can see 30 million as a FA but no way he comes close to that in arbitration. ]

[stormngt]

I have said this a 100 times on this board. If the Angels do not re-sign Trout it is there own dann fault. Having club control and the ability to keep Trout salary low is great leverage. Offering Trout 200 million where he is only guaranteed 500 k is an opportunity too great to turn down. The problem is that the closer Trout gets to Free Agency the less leverage the Angels have.

[gotbeer]

No, you said it 101 times on the board.  

[gotbeer]

here is an interesting nuance to the cbt that I didn't know about. 

 

"The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to the disqualified Clubs will be refunded to the payor Clubs, except that payor Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund."

 

disqualified clubs are the top 15 revenue producing teams. 

 

so if you go over the CBT two years in a row, you don't get your revenue share. 

 

Revenue share is that each team puts in 31% of their receipts and then it's all split evenly.  It's typically been about 30mil. 

 

Apparently, this starts in 2016, but not sure if there is carry over from the 2015 payroll.  Which could affect the halos substantially. 

 

Doc, where did you find that snippet at?  I'm looking at the CBT, and can't find that part.  But this could be the main reason why the Yanks are trying to so hard to get under the CBT.  

[Coachbulldog]

Rosenthal may have looked at the Angels financed for literally 5 seconds before writing the article, which is his usual MO.  The only National Media outlet I'd trust 100% when it comes to the Angels in Tim Brown over at Yahoo.

 

Sure, 10/300 may be required for Trout, if he's even willing to accept such an extension (he may want to play closer to home).  But Wells coming off the payroll next season frees up 21 million.  Two years after that, Wilson and Weav's deals expire, freeing up over 30 million.  Two years after that, Hamilton's 25 million are off the books. 

 

Will the Angels surpass the limit?  Sure, due to inflation, they are just as likely as any other team.  But will they be forced to because of the expense of current contracts as Rosenthal eludes to?  Absolutely not.

 

 

You're correct about Weaver and Wilson coming off the books but that doesn't really mean the Angels are going to get any luxury tax relief. When Weaver and Wilson come off the books they will have to either be resigned or other players signed to replace them. Unless the Angels choose to go with lower quality pitchers which will translate into a less competitive team, they are going to have to spend big bucks to fill the top two slots in the rotation. 

[Adam]

I can't see a 22/23 year-old getting $30 million AAV for 10 years.

More likely, he signs for a number of seasons that allows him one more big contract, hence I am in agreement with those predicting 7-8 years for about $22 million AAV. He knows then that he can still test FA again at age 30/31 for one more big contract.

 

That would be a great offer if we wanted to lose Trout

[floplag]

I have said this a 100 times on this board. If the Angels do not re-sign Trout it is there own dann fault. Having club control and the ability to keep Trout salary low is great leverage. Offering Trout 200 million where he is only guaranteed 500 k is an opportunity too great to turn down. The problem is that the closer Trout gets to Free Agency the less leverage the Angels have.

 

not true if the player does not want to sign.

for example, if he decides he wants to play in Phi.. he will, its pretty much that simple, the club has only so much ability to affect that.

this is what the front office needs to be gauging and have a very clear idea on, very soon.

[Brent Maguire]

They should trade Kendrick.

And go with Green full time? No thanks.

[Mark68]

No, you said it 101 times on the board.  

Actually 102.

[Glen]

That would be a great offer if we wanted to lose Trout

 

 

If Trout continues to put up numbers like he has in his first two seasons, he'll be getting $30 million/year easily for his first big contract.  The Yankees will see to that.

 

I'm not saying the Yankees will get him, just that they'll ensure that his contract is over $30 million a year. 

[Chuck]

Trout's agent concerns me. He comes across as egotistical and arrogant. He just wants in the headlines.

[Scott34]

Trout's agent concerns me. He comes across as egotistical and arrogant. He just wants in the headlines.

 

Here's a good headline:

 

Angels sign Mike Trout to 9 year/200M deal, Agent receives 10% commission.

[monkeywithahalo]

Trout's agent concerns me. He comes across as egotistical and arrogant. He just wants in the headlines.

An agent who is arrogant and ego-driven? I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, to think such a person could exist in the venerable profession of sports agency.

[Chuck]

An agent who is arrogant and ego-driven? I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, to think such a person could exist in the venerable profession of sports agency.

 

Oh trust me, I'm not shocked in the least. I'm just concerned because I think this cat is going to want his name in the headlines, and that may not bode well for the Angels  in retaining Trout long term in the long run.

[Angel Oracle]

Sounds like a budding Scott Bo-arse?

[Chimi]

I'm sure he'd love to be the guy who got Mike Trout two different contracts over $200MM in his career.  I think it's in the agents best interest to get Trout to sign an extension with the Angels.  Get Trout an 8yr/$200MM contract now and then when he's 30, get a 10yr/$300MM contract.  I'm sure the agent will love the commission on half a billion dollars.

 

Doesn't make much sense for the agent to wait until Trout becomes a FA at age 26.  That sets him up for one big day day in his career.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Chimi

[Angel Oracle]

Heck, even a pair of 8 year/$200 million contracts, starting with 2015 and going to 2030, isn't chopped liver.                                         

[AngelsLakersFan]

We should also consider the extreme likelihood that the CBT threshold is raised considerably in the next CBA.

[gotbeer]

We should also consider the extreme likelihood that the CBT threshold is raised considerably in the next CBA.

 

I don't know if it will.  Only the Angels, Tigers, Yankees, Doggies and Red Sox have gone over the CBT in the 11 years the CBT has been in place.  And the Red Sox was only twice.  With the Yankees the only other multiple offender.  Dogs are heading that way though.  

 

if the CBT is raised after 2016, it will only be by a small amount.  CBT was made to keep the big league clubs from acting like drunk sailors every FA period.  Players salaries are still going up, and 80% of the teams have no problems staying under.  It's going to be hard to get enough support from the union and small market teams over the Yanks, Dogs and Angels.  

 

******

Correction.  Red Sox have done it 6 times.  Yankees have done it every year.  Angles, Tigers, Dodgers once.

Edited January 7, 2014 by gotbeer

[stormngt]

not true if the player does not want to sign.

for example, if he decides he wants to play in Phi.. he will, its pretty much that simple, the club has only so much ability to affect that.

this is what the front office needs to be gauging and have a very clear idea on, very soon.[/

Like i said it's about leverage. Trout will not turn down a quarter of a billion guaranteed and instead play for 500 k in the hopes he doesn't get hurt or face a freak accident. That is too much money to walk away from and nothing is guaranteed four years down the road. It doesn't matter if his dream was to a Yankee or phillie. It is too much of a risk to wait if the big money is offered early. But like I said the longer the Angels wait. The closer Trout gets to his FA the less leverage the team has. The less leverage, the more likely location and top dollar plays a role in the decision making. That is why they should wait no longer than this spring. If we wait until he reaches arbitration and trout us guaranteed eight figure salary than I think Trout will consider location. ]