oater

The line for Duensing tonight: 5 IP O H 0 R 0 BB 2 SO

What can I say? Scioscia is the King of Cliché.

From Jeff Fletcher: "Heaney, who is nearly 13 months removed from Tommy John surgery, pitched 4-2/3 scoreless innings, with no walks and seven strikeouts, on Wednesday night in the rookie-level Arizona League. He has allowed two earned runs in 10-2/3 innings in three games, with 15 strikeouts and one walk. His next outing will be at a higher level, either Triple-A Salt Lake City or Class-A Inland Empire. “Velocity was good, command was good,” Scioscia said. “He’s on his path. Nothing has set him back so far. He’s doing well.'" http://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/angels-notes-yusmeiro-petit-gets-the-call-to-start/

If you are not aware, for practical purposes, this is the first year Torii Jr. has played organized baseball in 4 years. He concentrated on football at Notre Dame. While he technically was on the baseball team for 2 years, he had less than 20 AB. Under the circumstances, he has performed at an extremely high level at Orem.

Is Nate Smith injured again? He hasn't played since 7/4.

BINGO! This year, Oakland is a hitter's park too (1.110), while Fenway (0.957) is a pitcher's park.

I would be happy with either.

When did Connor Justus switch to the outfield? Is this permanent?

Well, until the minor league camp opened, there was no place to send these guys. Didn't this just happen?

Damn, that is a big overpay considering how average he is.

Eppler is a great communicator. It is a skill that should not be undervalued. Great article, so let me add my thanks for the link.

He is on the 40 man roster, so he's not eligible for this list. The omission that surprises me is Scribner.

Our friend Jeff Fletcher reports that the Angels have signed another peanut, Tony Sanchez to a minor league contract: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sanchez-737092-angels-pick.html

Presumably, the $195M threshold will apply this offseason. We will see when the final version of the new cba is published.

Chris O'Grady was selected last year and he likely will be available again this year. So . . .

Ettin: The "Competitive Balance Tax" (or luxury tax) is governed by Article XXIII or the CBA. Under Section B, the tax is computed based on each team's "Actual Club Payroll." You quoted from Section C, which defines the Actual Club Payroll. Please note that while generally this definition uses AAV of contracts, it is subject to a variety of adjustments, including performance bonuses and the like. The adjustments include the allocation among clubs under Section C, which includes the adjustment for when one team pays cash consideration to defray a portion of an assigned player's contract. So, when computing any potential luxury tax for the Angels, you have to deduct the $4MM that will be paid by the Twins in 2017 as required by C(2)(b)(iii), which I quoted.

With regard to point b, the CBA provides: (iii) Cash Consideration: An assignor Club that pays cash consideration in lieu of assigning an unnamed player or to defray all or part of the salary obligation of the assignee Club for an assigned Player shall include such cash consideration in its Actual Club Payroll in the Contract Year in which the cash consideration is paid; provided, however, that any such cash consideration included as part of a Player assignment made during the 2016 Contract Year but not payable until the 2017 Contract Year shall be included in the assignor Club’s 2016 Actual Club Payroll to the extent that the assignee Club does not have equivalent salary obligations under Player contracts obtained in the assignment in the 2017 championship season or beyond. Any cash consideration that is, pursuant to the preceding sentence, included in the Actual Club Payroll of the payor Club shall be subtracted from the Actual Club Payroll of the payee Club in the same Contract Year in which it is added to the payor Club’s Actual Club Payroll.

But E5(a)(ii) of the CBA provides: (ii) A “Player Option Year” shall mean a championship season covered by a Uniform Player’s Contract: (A) in which the amount payable pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Contract becomes due or guaranteed at the election of the Player; or (B) that can be nullified by a Player for a reason other than those set forth in paragraph 7 of the Contract. A Player Option Year shall be considered a “Guaranteed Year” if, pursuant to the Player’s right to elect or subject to his right to nullify, the terms of that year are guaran- teed within the definition in Section A(8); provided, however, that a Player Option Year shall not be considered a Guaranteed Year if the payment the Player is to receive if he declines to exer- cise his option or nullifies the championship season is more than 50% of the Base Salary payable for that championship season. Nolasco doesn't have the option of "nullifying" the team option, so it is not a guaranteed year.

A couple of points: a. 2t018 is a "Club Option Year," not a "Guaranteed Year," so it is viewed as a 4 year contract for luxury tax purposes. The contract contains a "vesting option," but that does not make it a Player Option (which would make it a "Guaranteed Year"). The contract (when signed) had an AAV of $12.25MM (the $12MM annual salary for 2014 through 2017 plus 1/4 of the $1MM buy-out for 2018). b. The "actual salary" that will be attributed to the Angels in 2017 will be $8.25MM (the $12.25 AAV less the $4MM paid by the Twins). This presumes (of course) that Nolasco plays the entire year with the Angels. It also disregards the possibility of an additional credit to the Angels should the Twins end up paying the $1MM buy-out of the 2018 option. While the AAV enters into the calculation, the luxury tax is computed using the "actual salary" rather than the AAV.

Thanks for the post--it presents a lot of good information. Obviously, you needed to make a number of assumptions, so the numbers are fluid. I think the AAV numbers for Nolasco are high (as applied to the Angels). Since the Twins are picking up $4MM of the salary in 2017 and are responsible for buying out the 2018 option (unless exercised by the Angels), the AAV should be $8MM or less. That would give the Angels another $2+MM to work with.

Well, that was underwhelming.

Hultzen is a sad case. He was really good in college, but has suffered through major shoulder issues. At this stage, the Angels have far better in-house options.

Yeah, I remember 2002 when Sosh refused to use K-Rod because he was still wet behind the ears.

Walker is the logical choice, but he would cost a draft pick. So I'm going with SRod.

Other interesting news from Fletcher: Campos may soon be cleared to start throwing and could be ready for spring training. Angels were represented at Greg Holland's exhibition and he looked good. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/angels-734636-andrew-grabbed.html