Author Topic: Lerners are Cheap - 2017  (Read 18803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeyhit

  • Posts: 2603
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #325: July 04, 2017, 07:47:02 AM »
It's an embarrassing organization that won't pay to fix this bullpen. What more do they need to see?

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26824
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #326: August 04, 2017, 09:17:44 AM »
hmmm.  Janes says that they are going to trigger the luxury tax this year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/08/03/the-nationals-have-spent-more-on-this-team-than-ever-before-could-they-add-more/?utm_term=.76bbb3073b5d

Quote
After their deadline moves, the Nationals have spent as much as they ever have on their roster, around $170 million in payroll, according to Cot’s Baseball Contracts (which has yet to be updated to include their deadline acquisitions — about $7 million in prorated salary). Last year’s end-of-year payroll, their highest ever, sat at $170 million.

For the first time in their history, the Nationals are past the collective bargaining tax threshold ($195 million), in which payroll is calculated using the average annual value of contracts and includes an approximate $13 million for player benefits. Because they are first-time offenders, this will cost them 20 percent of their overage. That the Nationals are over the threshold at all signals unprecedented spending and likely means they will not be able to shoulder the kind of massive contracts that get traded this time of year, even if they did have interest.

I checked the Cots spread sheet on the running calculation for luxury tax purposes, and she seems to be right.  It was at $192.5 without Kendrick, Madson, Doolittle, and Kintzler.  Some of the names (Marmalejos) assigned MLB minimum are interchangeable with guys like Grace who are not assigned who are lumped into the 15 extras on the 40 man who are in the minors.  There was about $2.5MM in space.  Kendrick is MLB minimum, so figure he's interchangeable, but Kintzler is $1MM, Madson another $2MM+, and Doolittle is another $900K.  That looks like at least $4MM additional salary or bout $1.5MM over the threshold.  Janes says it is closer to $7MM in picked up salary, so I may be low.

Here's the Cots luxury tax tracker.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-t4BlpC_npBSj6KFivtDkuqtmEu5Vlk2yPvMZD_UkuQ/pubhtml#


Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49946
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #327: August 04, 2017, 09:20:31 AM »
Well, that's what you get for spending crap money on Wieters

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 20197
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #328: August 04, 2017, 09:51:03 AM »
How the hell does Boras get the Lerners to spend silly money on not-much-better-than-average players?

Well, that's what you get for spending crap money on Wieters

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49946
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #329: August 04, 2017, 09:54:38 AM »
How the hell does Boras get the Lerners to spend silly money on not-much-better-than-average players?

Because he's Boras

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 62570
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #330: August 04, 2017, 11:35:14 AM »
How the hell does Boras get the Lerners to spend silly money on not-much-better-than-average players?


He probably tells 'em how baseball savvy they are.

Online varoadking

  • Posts: 25651
  • King of Goodness
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #331: August 04, 2017, 11:38:01 AM »
He probably tells 'em how baseball savvy they are.

And how smart they were to draft his client Drew Store instead of Mike Trout.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 28856
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #332: August 04, 2017, 12:40:58 PM »
Well, that's what you get for spending crap money on Wieters

Still better than Norris.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #333: August 04, 2017, 12:59:00 PM »
Still better than Norris.

This is very true. It was an all-around crappy batch of free agent catchers. Personally I woulda liked to have kept the Buffalo but I can understand any team not having the taste for the risk there.  Which left Suzuki, Avila, meh meh meh.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 15193
  • babble on
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #334: August 04, 2017, 01:03:07 PM »
Suzuki is having a substantially better year than Wieters, but point taken...

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26824
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #335: August 04, 2017, 01:18:38 PM »
Suzuki is having a substantially better year than Wieters, but point taken...
Avila too, plus Tyler Flowers was available for a song (OK, the song would have been "Listen to the Flowers People").



It's more that Wieters was a bad way to spend money.  It cramps room under the luxury tax threshold which has more of a bite next year, at the end of the Harper / Murphy / Gonzalez window.

Offline CoryTheFormerExposFan

  • Posts: 1379
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #336: August 04, 2017, 01:38:09 PM »
Nats are over the luxury tax.  I think the premise of this thread is sily.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49946
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #337: August 04, 2017, 01:40:41 PM »
Still better than Norris.
Is he better than Derek Norris and Greg Holland? Because signing Wieters effectively cost Rizzo the ability to sign Holland or make the Robertson trade.

FYI, Wieters and Norris have the same WAR. Norris has played 30 fewer games. And, oh yea, Alex Avila was available at the deadline too . . .

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #338: August 04, 2017, 01:44:18 PM »
Is he better than Derek Norris and Greg Holland? Because signing Wieters effectively cost Rizzo the ability to sign Holland or make the Robertson trade.


Or we  could have still not done the Holland trade, and we'd have  Norris and the bullpen we currently have.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13481
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #339: August 04, 2017, 02:09:59 PM »
Nats are over the luxury tax.  I think the premise of this thread is sily.

Was that 20% of $1.5m?

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26824
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #340: August 04, 2017, 03:46:19 PM »
Was that 20% of $1.5m?
sure, its trivial now, but for 2018, the tax goes up if you repeat crossing the threshold. If you want to add a closer for $15MM AAV and maybe sign JD Martinez at another $24MM AAV to replace Werth, then you start getting into more serious penalties.  Then, after 2018, when the free agent market is rich and have to bid on Murphy / Harper / Gio replacements, you face even worse constraints.  Exceeding now means you can't in 2018, as a practical matter.  Wieters, in effect, is costing you next year's closer.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26824
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #341: August 04, 2017, 04:02:04 PM »
nice discussion of the luxury tax implications for 2018.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/08/nationals-over-luxury-tax-threshold.html

Lots of money coming off the books ($35MM), only 3 arb guys (rendon, roark, and taylor), so there may be money left over for FA signings.  However, there are other impacts on pursuing FAs that receive QOs (like Davis and probably Holland).

Quote
As Janes notes, the Nats will pay a 20 percent tax on their overage as a first-time offender. The exact figure of the Nats’ luxury tax payroll remains to be seen, but their overage will fall into the $0-20MM bracket, so it’s hardly dire from a purely financial standpoint. There are other factors worth noting as well, though.

Firstly, if the Nationals exceed the luxury tax for a second time in 2018 by a similar margin they’ll be taxed at a 30 percent rate instead of a 20 percent rate. Secondly, if the Nationals elect to pursue a free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer this offseason, they’ll now face a steeper penalty for signing him. The new collective bargaining agreement stipulated that luxury tax payers will forfeit their second- and fifth-highest selections in the following year’s draft and will also lost $1MM from their league-allotted international bonus pool.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #342: August 04, 2017, 04:16:29 PM »
I thought the draft pick penalty was only for repeat offenders.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6192
  • The GOAT
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #343: August 04, 2017, 05:36:47 PM »
nice discussion of the luxury tax implications for 2018.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/08/nationals-over-luxury-tax-threshold.html

Lots of money coming off the books ($35MM), only 3 arb guys (rendon, roark, and taylor), so there may be money left over for FA signings.  However, there are other impacts on pursuing FAs that receive QOs (like Davis and probably Holland).

So LANC?  Lock thread?  End discussion forever?  Finally?

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2882
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #344: August 04, 2017, 06:41:43 PM »
Is he better than Derek Norris and Greg Holland? Because signing Wieters effectively cost Rizzo the ability to sign Holland or make the Robertson trade.

FYI, Wieters and Norris have the same WAR. Norris has played 30 fewer games. And, oh yea, Alex Avila was available at the deadline too . . .
Holland signed with the Rockies on Jan 28.
Waiters signed with the Nats on Feb 24.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33301
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #345: August 04, 2017, 09:29:45 PM »
So LANC?  Lock thread?  End discussion forever?  Finally?

The arguments of the LAC crowd have been stripped away one by one.  Hanging by a thread now.

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 530
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #346: August 04, 2017, 10:07:21 PM »
The arguments of the LAC crowd have been stripped away one by one.  Hanging by a thread now.

Absorbed into viewing it as a penny-wise, pound-clueless situation.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13481
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #347: August 04, 2017, 10:33:05 PM »
sure, its trivial now, but for 2018, the tax goes up if you repeat crossing the threshold. If you want to add a closer for $15MM AAV and maybe sign JD Martinez at another $24MM AAV to replace Werth, then you start getting into more serious penalties.  Then, after 2018, when the free agent market is rich and have to bid on Murphy / Harper / Gio replacements, you face even worse constraints.  Exceeding now means you can't in 2018, as a practical matter.  Wieters, in effect, is costing you next year's closer.

So it makes no sense, why exceed the threshold by such a piddling amount? The penalties jump next year so the normal options would be to either avoid the tax or to blow past the limit.

Also, is this confirmed or just speculation on Janes' part? The $13 million in non payroll expenses is just a guess, considering that the Lerners are cheap it's not a great leap to conclude that the team is probably only being charged with $11.49 million.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26824
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #348: August 04, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »
So it makes no sense, why exceed the threshold by such a piddling amount? The penalties jump next year so the normal options would be to either avoid the tax or to blow past the limit.

Also, is this confirmed or just speculation on Janes' part? The $13 million in non payroll expenses is just a guess, considering that the Lerners are cheap it's not a great leap to conclude that the team is probably only being charged with $11.49 million.
I don't think it is firm until things like incentive bonuses are figured, as well as any final trades this month. 

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13481
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #349: August 04, 2017, 10:44:29 PM »
I don't think it is firm until things like incentive bonuses are figured, as well as any final trades this month. 

Just doesn't make sense to trigger the higher penalty for such a low amount and Rizzo is working with actual figures rather than estimates.