Then someone needs to explain why they're equating games with days. Since when are 162 games necessarily played in 162 days? Otherwise there's no logic behind using 162/183 as the prorated amount.
Staying Under $189M: The Impossible Dream
- Thread starter jon abbey
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps, but it makes no sense that a guy would be suspended for an entire season, not get paid a dollar, yet the prorated salary for the off days would count against the cap.
YesWinger 03 said:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/start_end_4.jsp
Rule 4.07 Comment: If a manager, coach or player is under suspension he may not be in the dugout or press box during the course of a game.
@gabekapler posts what won't but should happen to teams who sign someone who later gets suspended for PEDs. Link
That's not a new idea. I've heard other people make similar suggestions. I think charitable donations would be great, but at a minimum the team shouldn't be let off the hook for both the cash payment and the cap hit. Obviously a team with a low payroll doesn't care about the cap implications. Kapler is absolutely right about this creating a back door insurance policy for the owners. It may be unintentional but it's a terrible outcome.
If that's really been the plan all along then the Beltran signing is even more curious. Presumably 2014 will be his best year, or at least the year in which you'd expect him to perform the best since he's 37. Why spend $15m for an old, declining OF when you're basically punting year one of the deal? Ellsbury and McCann can certainly be productive in subsequent years but the Beltran signing doesn't seem to fit with their long-term plan.
My updated Yankees payroll (updated for Rodriguez suspension and updated arb estimates):
Rotation (43.40 AAV + FA) - Sabathia (24.40 AAV), Kuroda (16.00 AAV), FA, Nova (arb1, assume 2.50 AAV), Pineda (min, 0.50 AAV)
Bullpen (12.00 AAV) - Robertson (arb3, assume 5.00 AAV), Phelps (min, 0.50 AAV), Thornton (3.50 AAV), Kelley (arb2, assume 1.50 AAV), Warren (min, 0.50 AAV), Betances (min, 0.50 AAV), Claiborne (min, 0.50 AAV)
Lineup (102.17 AAV, net) – Ellsbury (21.86 AAV), Jeter (12.81 AAV), Beltran (15.00 AAV), Teixeira (22.50 AAV), Soriano (4.00 AAV, net of payment from CHC), McCann (17.00 AAV), Gardner (arb3, assume 4.00 AAV), Johnson (3.00 AAV), Roberts (2.00 AAV)
Bench (10.00 AAV) - Cervelli (arb1, assume 1.00 AAV), Ryan (2.00 AAV), Suzuki (6.50 AAV), Nunez/Sizemore (min, 0.50 AAV)
No longer on roster: Wells (0.00 AAV, net of payments from LAA/TOR), Rodriguez (3.16 AAV, net of suspension).
This assumes that bonuses for Jeter, Soriano, Kuroda and Roberts are not hit.
Total AAV is 170.73, plus 17.00 AAV in benefits/40 man roster.
That leaves approx. 1.27 AAV to fill out/upgrade the roster (including a 2/3 starter) and remain under the luxury tax threshold.
Rotation (43.40 AAV + FA) - Sabathia (24.40 AAV), Kuroda (16.00 AAV), FA, Nova (arb1, assume 2.50 AAV), Pineda (min, 0.50 AAV)
Bullpen (12.00 AAV) - Robertson (arb3, assume 5.00 AAV), Phelps (min, 0.50 AAV), Thornton (3.50 AAV), Kelley (arb2, assume 1.50 AAV), Warren (min, 0.50 AAV), Betances (min, 0.50 AAV), Claiborne (min, 0.50 AAV)
Lineup (102.17 AAV, net) – Ellsbury (21.86 AAV), Jeter (12.81 AAV), Beltran (15.00 AAV), Teixeira (22.50 AAV), Soriano (4.00 AAV, net of payment from CHC), McCann (17.00 AAV), Gardner (arb3, assume 4.00 AAV), Johnson (3.00 AAV), Roberts (2.00 AAV)
Bench (10.00 AAV) - Cervelli (arb1, assume 1.00 AAV), Ryan (2.00 AAV), Suzuki (6.50 AAV), Nunez/Sizemore (min, 0.50 AAV)
No longer on roster: Wells (0.00 AAV, net of payments from LAA/TOR), Rodriguez (3.16 AAV, net of suspension).
This assumes that bonuses for Jeter, Soriano, Kuroda and Roberts are not hit.
Total AAV is 170.73, plus 17.00 AAV in benefits/40 man roster.
That leaves approx. 1.27 AAV to fill out/upgrade the roster (including a 2/3 starter) and remain under the luxury tax threshold.
glennhoffmania said:
I think there are competing decision makers and it's leading to a big muddle. The Beltran one is bad but I will never get over letting Russell Martin go because 2/17 was too much and then signing a slight upgrade in McCann for 5/85 the next offseason.
I don't think it's as unclear or muddied as most people. $189 or under if they can't get Tanaka. If they can get Tanaka and aren't outbid, they won't leave any holes on the field.
Right, it's the previous decision making that has been muddled. Russell Martin and Tanaka would have been less per season combined than McCann and Beltran, for instance. The individual moves are mostly understandable on their own, but the macro plan is incomprehensible, except for the part about staying under $189M.
For tax purposes, why does A-Rod not simply count as (275-25)/10=25M? If it's AAV for cap purposes - that he's not getting paid this year (or perhaps getting paid 21/183 of his salary according to some reports) doesn't suddenly eliminate the other 9 years of the contract from the calculation. How is it that A-Rod doesn't count at all toward the cap now? That makes no sense.
crow216 said:
Two questions about this.
1. If they don't get Tanaka so they stay under 189m, what was the point of signing Beltran and Kuroda for what will most likely be a lost year?
2. If they get Tanaka, how are they magically going to fill all of the holes starting in Feb.? I'm not saying it can't be done, but they'll be scrambling pretty late in the game to pull it off after many options are no longer available.
1 - Kuroda was a body they trust on a 1 year deal to fill a rotation spot. They don't want to commit to the shit that's out there right now for multiple years. By himself, it's a poor signing. Part of a larger plan where they get more pitching, I think it's smarter. The Yankees didn't sign Beltran hoping to get 1 good year out of him. Whether that's right or wrong is for everyone to see but they don't expect 1 good year and 2 wasted years from him.
2 - Not magic. With their checkbook. Once they go over $189m, I think it's obvious that nothing would hold them back from going to 210 or 220 or whatever they think they need.
2 - Not magic. With their checkbook. Once they go over $189m, I think it's obvious that nothing would hold them back from going to 210 or 220 or whatever they think they need.
Cumberland Blues said:
I'm with you in that I don' think the Yankees (or any team for that matter) should be able to get out from under the luxury tax implications due to PED use. I think the most reasonable approach would be to simply pro-rate the remaining contract assuming the new baseline resulting from the PED suspension. Since the Yankees have already used the higher cap figure for a portion of the ARod contract, we could take the 27.5 cap hit they've had the previous 6 years of the contract and take the difference from the 'new' cap hit off the remaining years. Thus, if we assume the cap hit with the suspension is 25M/year, the Yankees would have paid 15M in excess of that cap number over the previous 6 seasons. So if you wanted to then assume the 25M number over the last 4 years, it should actually be a (100-15)/4 = 21.25M hit for the remaining 4 years. I think this is a good compromise in that it does not 'reward' teams with immense payroll relief due to signing a PED user.
1 - Kuroda was a body they trust on a 1 year deal to fill a rotation spot. They don't want to commit to the shit that's out there right now for multiple years. By himself, it's a poor signing. Part of a larger plan where they get more pitching, I think it's smarter. The Yankees didn't sign Beltran hoping to get 1 good year out of him. Whether that's right or wrong is for everyone to see but they don't expect 1 good year and 2 wasted years from him.
2 - Not magic. With their checkbook. Once they go over $189m, I think it's obvious that nothing would hold them back from going to 210 or 220 or whatever they think they need.
1. Anything can happen, but my point was that if they stay under the cap it means their roster is pretty much set and that team isn't making the playoffs. So why give Kuroda 16m instead of letting a kid pitch or taking a chance on a younger, cheaper pitcher who may pay dividends in future years? As for Beltran they obviously hope to get more than one year out of him but they'd essentially be wasting the best chance of the three years for him to have a solid year. If they're planning for two or three seasons from now I don't see how Beltran makes much sense over some of the other options at the time.
2. The problem is that it isn't November or December. Lots of guys have already signed and trades have been made. Their options for spending money are obviously more limited in February. It's great to have a pile of cash to spend but you need things to spend it on.
2 - Not magic. With their checkbook. Once they go over $189m, I think it's obvious that nothing would hold them back from going to 210 or 220 or whatever they think they need.
1. Anything can happen, but my point was that if they stay under the cap it means their roster is pretty much set and that team isn't making the playoffs. So why give Kuroda 16m instead of letting a kid pitch or taking a chance on a younger, cheaper pitcher who may pay dividends in future years? As for Beltran they obviously hope to get more than one year out of him but they'd essentially be wasting the best chance of the three years for him to have a solid year. If they're planning for two or three seasons from now I don't see how Beltran makes much sense over some of the other options at the time.
2. The problem is that it isn't November or December. Lots of guys have already signed and trades have been made. Their options for spending money are obviously more limited in February. It's great to have a pile of cash to spend but you need things to spend it on.
If they don't get Tanaka so they stay under 189m, what was the point of signing Beltran and Kuroda for what will most likely be a lost year?
Because they're not conceding it's a lost year. The Red Sox won't be as good on paper as in 2013. If the Rays trade David Price, they won't be either. Plus, the MFYs' roster has a lot of upside (and downside) -- Teixeira could come back strong from injury, Sabathia could have a bounce-back year, McCann could coax greater than expected improvements from the pitching staff, and so on. Putting it all together, they think 90 wins might be good enough to win the division, and they think they have a fighting chance to win that many games. And even if this is all too optimistic, with two WC berths up for grabs, even a .500 team will be playing meaningful games through at least Labor Day.
To be clear, I don't think the MFY are likely to be that good, but it's not irrational for management to take a glass half-full outlook, rather than conceding the season prior to Openinfg Day. Besides, if you figure they'll spend $250mm in 2015, how much of a millstone is Beltran's contract going to be?
Because they're not conceding it's a lost year. The Red Sox won't be as good on paper as in 2013. If the Rays trade David Price, they won't be either. Plus, the MFYs' roster has a lot of upside (and downside) -- Teixeira could come back strong from injury, Sabathia could have a bounce-back year, McCann could coax greater than expected improvements from the pitching staff, and so on. Putting it all together, they think 90 wins might be good enough to win the division, and they think they have a fighting chance to win that many games. And even if this is all too optimistic, with two WC berths up for grabs, even a .500 team will be playing meaningful games through at least Labor Day.
To be clear, I don't think the MFY are likely to be that good, but it's not irrational for management to take a glass half-full outlook, rather than conceding the season prior to Openinfg Day. Besides, if you figure they'll spend $250mm in 2015, how much of a millstone is Beltran's contract going to be?
I assumed $14mm for the arb candidates; the actual amount is $16.58mm ($5.6 - Gardner, $5.215 - Robertson, $3.3 - Nova, $1.765 - Kelley, $0.7 - Cervelli)amfox1 said:
That puts total AAV at 173.31, plus 17.00 AAV in benefits/40 man roster, and puts the team 1.31mm over the luxury tax threshold.
amfox1 said:
The benefits/40-man number is a broadly-applied estimate, so that's the only possible place for any wiggle room. What a cluster-screw for NYY.
The worst part of them going over wouldn't be the tax paid, it would be their failure to re-set their tax rate (50% at present).
Good piece here: http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2014/01/17/getting-below-189/
I don't have time to compare amfox1's numbers with this guy's numbers, but the MFY have some work to do if they want to stay under $189.
I still think they could do something crazy, like trading Suzuki, Gardner, Gary Sanchez and a lesser prospect for Samardzija.
One other thing -- the $189 is based on where they are at the end of the year, yes? Part of me wonders if they'll be over going into the season, then dump pieces in midsummer if they're not playing well.
I don't have time to compare amfox1's numbers with this guy's numbers, but the MFY have some work to do if they want to stay under $189.
I still think they could do something crazy, like trading Suzuki, Gardner, Gary Sanchez and a lesser prospect for Samardzija.
One other thing -- the $189 is based on where they are at the end of the year, yes? Part of me wonders if they'll be over going into the season, then dump pieces in midsummer if they're not playing well.
They really seem to have no idea what they're doing in the big picture, like there are two groups of people making alternate decisions or something.
On the bright side, if these numbers are all correct, they have no real excuse to not go after Tanaka hard now.
On the bright side, if these numbers are all correct, they have no real excuse to not go after Tanaka hard now.
This might be a dumb question, but if a guy is making $10m and he's traded at the mid point of the season, does he count $5m toward the cap, or is it only based on payroll as of the end of the season?
rembrat said:
There were so many ways they could've worked around this. Beltran was clearly the worst decision. He wasn't a need and he was paid too much. Instead of Ellsbury and Beltran they could've had Cano and someone like McLouth and had a decent cushion. Then they could go after Tanaka and if they don't get him, they're under the cap easily.
It's kind of funny that one of the best things they could do to shed salary is getting out from Beltran's contract... Which they just created this offseason.
Really puzzling.
Really puzzling.
amfox1 said:
nattysez said:
They are pretty much the same. AmFox has 17.00 AAV in benefits/40 man; IATM has $.800M for the rest of the 40-man roster, $12M in benefits, and $3.5M for upgrades.
Two discrepancies: AmFox has Ellsbury at $21.86 and Nova $2.5M; while IATM has Ellsbury at $21.175 and Nova at $2.8M. Also, It seems like AmFox is leaving a placeholder for one of the SPs so he is really only calculating for 39 spots while IATM has 40 spots. So the MFYs are somewhere between $1.27M and $2.00M below the luxury tax and still looking for starting pitching and having to deal with whatever injuries happen during the season.
Not including bonuses.
If they're over the cap in 2014 and end up getting Tanaka now, they'll have a really hard time getting back under the luxury tax threshold and re-setting their rate before the current CBA expires in 2016. I'm assuming A-Rod's cap figure will be recalculated to account for this year's reduced payout, so here are the AAVs for players currently under contract for 2015:
$25.137 Rodriguez
$22.500 Teixeira
$24.400 Sabathia
$21.857 Ellsbury
$17.000 McCann
$15.000 Beltran
$03.500 Thornton
$02.500 Ryan
Subtotal = $131.894M for just 8 players.
Add the estimated $17M for benefits/40-man/minors commitments, and it's $148.894M. Bear in mind that in 2015 and 2016, the MLB and minor league minimum salaries are subject to cost-of-living increases, which I haven't accounted for.
I think we can all agree Tanaka's AAV will be at least $20M, so let's conservatively assume $21M. Now they're at $169.894
And they'd still have 16 spots to fill on the 25-man roster, or 17 if they decide to release A-Rod and his sideshow. That's with just over $19M to spend, money that would also have to cover any bonuses, mid-season acquisitions, retention of 2014 free agents, and post-2014 arbitration offers. Hard to believe this is where they'd be after dropping Wells, Jeter, Kuroda, Soriano & Suzuki from the books while losing Gardner & Robertson to free agency.
I'd give them two chances of staying under $189M: Slim, and None. Trading any of the big-money players, including Beltran, is going to be a bitch.
Pretty sure it's based on prorated service time in days, with 183 days in the full season.
$25.137 Rodriguez
$22.500 Teixeira
$24.400 Sabathia
$21.857 Ellsbury
$17.000 McCann
$15.000 Beltran
$03.500 Thornton
$02.500 Ryan
Subtotal = $131.894M for just 8 players.
Add the estimated $17M for benefits/40-man/minors commitments, and it's $148.894M. Bear in mind that in 2015 and 2016, the MLB and minor league minimum salaries are subject to cost-of-living increases, which I haven't accounted for.
I think we can all agree Tanaka's AAV will be at least $20M, so let's conservatively assume $21M. Now they're at $169.894
And they'd still have 16 spots to fill on the 25-man roster, or 17 if they decide to release A-Rod and his sideshow. That's with just over $19M to spend, money that would also have to cover any bonuses, mid-season acquisitions, retention of 2014 free agents, and post-2014 arbitration offers. Hard to believe this is where they'd be after dropping Wells, Jeter, Kuroda, Soriano & Suzuki from the books while losing Gardner & Robertson to free agency.
I'd give them two chances of staying under $189M: Slim, and None. Trading any of the big-money players, including Beltran, is going to be a bitch.
glennhoffmania said:
Pretty sure it's based on prorated service time in days, with 183 days in the full season.
mabrowndog said:
That would make sense, but at the same time the acquiring team would presumably pay luxury tax based on AAV of the whole contract, not just based on what they pay the guy for half the season. So there seems to be an inconsistency.
glennhoffmania said:
I think what happens is the AAV for that year alone is divided between the teams based on service days in their respective employ, while also factoring in any cash that changes hands. The acquiring team is then wholly responsible for the AAV in succeeding years until they part company through trade, waiver claim, free agency, retirement, etc.
For instance, the Sox acquired Matt Thornton last July 12. He was on the White Sox' roster for 103 days inclusive, and spent 80 days with the Red Sox. Chicago was responsible for 56.284% of Thornton's $5.5M AAV (which comes to 3.096M), minus the $750k they sent to Boston. So they were assigned $2.346M toward their cap figure, while Boston was assigned the balance of $3.154M.
Had the Red Sox been responsible for the whole AAV, they'd have gone over the $178M threshold instead of coming in just $250k under it.
EDIT - As PP points out, it's Chicago that got assessed the $750k, not Boston. So assuming I haven't fucked anything else up, the cap splits were $3.846M for White, $1.654M for Red.
It's a good thing they have lots of money, because if they don't get under $189MM this year it is going to cost them a fortune. There has been a lot of discussion about revenue sharing refunds, but I didn't really see anything clearly explaining it. It is way too complicated to summarize, but basically by continuing to be five time LT offenders, it will insure they lose revenue sharing funds incrementally until by 2016 they will not be getting back one penny of the revenue sharing pool. They will be paying in 34% of Net Local Revenue plus an approximate 27% share of the Supplemental Pool (additional 14% of net local revenue), and not getting any of it back.
This article is a couple of years old, but is a pretty good explanation of the revenue sharing rules through the current CBA (2016). This makes it pretty clear why they were trying to get to $189MM.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/marlins-mlb-revenue-sharing-syste/
This article is a couple of years old, but is a pretty good explanation of the revenue sharing rules through the current CBA (2016). This makes it pretty clear why they were trying to get to $189MM.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/marlins-mlb-revenue-sharing-syste/
Yeah, I fucked that up. I'm lighting this thread on fire with brain farts.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me how much I hated Renteria and the transactions he was involved in.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me how much I hated Renteria and the transactions he was involved in.
jon abbey said:
The numbers pretty much say that despite Arod being gone from the year they can still get under 189 but will have little room to spend anymore w/o going over 189. In essence, they would have to trade Ichiro and/or Gardner if they wanted to land a low budget starter, or else they have to go for in house options at SP'er and the bullpen, and I think we both agree that the team will not be competitive either way without a miracle.
There are many reasons to blow 189 out of the water which I won't bother repeating. The question is will they do it or not. I believe you are right, they are a house divided and their decision making seems no better than that made by a person with a split personality. The 189'ers in one corner and the followers of Daddy Steinbrenner "win at all cost" in the other. I do agree with Sherman that if they go over 189, they will go over in a big way. No way they end up at 192 or so.
In addition to Kuroda, if they decide to punt mid-season Robertson is someone who would give them a few million relief and a solid prospect back. They can probably get someone to take on half of Ichiro's contract right now as well; he's a valuable 4th outfielder if he's willing to accept the role. To get rid of bigger chunks they'd have to hope Teixiera starts strong and somebody. Loses a first baseman to injury, then pay half his remaining contract.
I think the Yankees can look through rose-colored glasses with this current roster and hope to contend with perfect luck. It'll depend on the unproven bullpen and one last hurrah from more veterans than not, but its possible.
I think the Yankees can look through rose-colored glasses with this current roster and hope to contend with perfect luck. It'll depend on the unproven bullpen and one last hurrah from more veterans than not, but its possible.
Cot's has the Yankees currently at : 172.1
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tpQLwiiQL4kzEzLhsUqVjLQ&output=html
That is for 18 players.
Approximating the other 22 at the minimum of ~.5 puts the Yankees at 183.1
Adding 11 in benefits, etc (People have quoted 17 here, but I think the figure is 11), puts them over at 194.
So unless they shed contracts during the season, which is very possible if they fall out of contention, it looks like the Yankees will be over
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tpQLwiiQL4kzEzLhsUqVjLQ&output=html
That is for 18 players.
Approximating the other 22 at the minimum of ~.5 puts the Yankees at 183.1
Adding 11 in benefits, etc (People have quoted 17 here, but I think the figure is 11), puts them over at 194.
So unless they shed contracts during the season, which is very possible if they fall out of contention, it looks like the Yankees will be over
You're looking at 2014 salaries, not AAV. And you're not taking into account money they receive from other teams, like for Soriano.
In my lifetime said:
In addition to using salaries and not AAV (as Glenn points out), you're allocating a full season's worth of the MLB minimum salary ($500k) to all 22 remaining players on the 40-man, which is way too high. Players only get paid at that rate (prorated) while they're actually in the majors (unless their contracts stipulate otherwise, such as the major league deal Jose Iglesias had with the Sox). Minor league minimum salary for players on the 40-man is $82,000 this year.
Also, the "17" figure people have quoted includes benefits PLUS estimated major league salary for in-season call-ups PLUS estimated minor league salary for players on the 40-man roster. Other sources estimate it at 16, with the approximate split being 10.8M for benefits, 4M for minor league call-ups (based on 1500 total service days), and 1.2M for minor league 40-man salaries.
Looks like the Yankees are indeed saying to hell with the luxury tax. They're one of the 5 teams who bid on Tanaka.
Hard to say if the Yankees bid is anything more than a PR move to appease the fan base by saying they tried, like with Cano. If they want him I think they can outbid any team out there. Obviously that would blow 189 out of the water..Dodgers have the money too but I don't think they need Tanaka enough to overpay him as much and might feel they have the advantage of being Tanakas preference so come in low. Yankees have the need and the money. 10 yrs, 180 million with a 6 yr optout should do it. Tanaka would be age 34 at the end of 10 years and his 18 million AAV would be about 12 million in 2014 dollars.
Tanaka would be age 34 at the end of 10 years and his 18 million AAV would be about 12 million in 2014 dollars.
Plus the 50% luxury tax cost of that each year.
Plus the 50% luxury tax cost of that each year.
I'll throw this in here for now. No idea how this affects his pitching. Also, he looks like the new Cubs mascot.
I don't know if that counts as "the best shape of his life", but it damn sure is a different shape than he's had for most of his life.
terrisus said:
This is not the way to look at that, because this decision is not made in isolation. They still need a pitcher and they are over anyway...
Sampo Gida said:
A 10-year deal for someone that hasn't pitched in MLB is a massive risk, especially at $18M per year. I expect teams to go shorter with a higher AAV,
crow216 said:I'll throw this in here for now. No idea how this affects his pitching. Also, he looks like the new Cubs mascot.
I like the correlation between this picture and the thread title... CC is taking it serious!
- Status