Author Topic: Competitive Balance Tax  (Read 6411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33298
  • Hell yes!
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #126: September 06, 2018, 04:37:15 PM »
I nominate Tom Terp. Free tix for long time WNFF members and special exclusive events.

 :couch:

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 62435
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #127: September 06, 2018, 04:40:42 PM »

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #128: September 06, 2018, 04:47:50 PM »
In order to get under though, you need somebody to take players salary. If they moved Harper, this is a moot point. No one wanted to touch Weiters and what was owed to him. Herrera ended up destroying his foot four days before the deadline. Hellickson is on the DL. Mark Reynolds makes next to nothing. Greg Holland makes even less. They weren't getting under unless they were able to move Herrera.

Definitely Harper should have been moved. Moving Gonzalez, Murphy, and Madson earlier would have gotten them close. Wieters would have been tough, probably the Nats would have needed to give up prospects. Rendon is going to be a free agent soon and he would have returned better prospects than all those other guys combined.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 2821
  • Juan Soto aka Human Wildcat
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #129: September 06, 2018, 04:57:00 PM »
If the Lerner's don't care about the CBT, then I don't care.  The difference between getting a post 2nd round or a post 4th round pick for Harper is not something I am really going to worry about.

If the plan is to bid on Harper post free agency, we do have a bit of an advantage in that we don't have to give up draft picks and international money like other teams will.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49866
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #130: September 06, 2018, 04:59:41 PM »
Definitely Harper should have been moved. Moving Gonzalez, Murphy, and Madson earlier would have gotten them close. Wieters would have been tough, probably the Nats would have needed to give up prospects. Rendon is going to be a free agent soon and he would have returned better prospects than all those other guys combined.

Why stop at Rendon? May as well trade anyone not named Soto

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 7844
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #131: September 06, 2018, 05:01:40 PM »
If you wanted to re-sign Harper, it made zero sense to trade him. One, it might piss him off, two, it gives some other team the chance to woo and recruit him for two months, which is the main advantage the Nats have. It is clear to me that the Lerners want to re-sign Harper, which is why, because no one gave up the keys to the kingdom, he wasn't traded.

It makes even less sense to trade Rendon if you think you will be competitive next year. 

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #132: September 06, 2018, 05:09:09 PM »
If the Lerner's don't care about the CBT, then I don't care.  The difference between getting a post 2nd round or a post 4th round pick for Harper is not something I am really going to worry about.

If the plan is to bid on Harper post free agency, we do have a bit of an advantage in that we don't have to give up draft picks and international money like other teams will.

They do care, that was the stated reason for not adding talent at the deadline.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #133: September 06, 2018, 05:10:19 PM »
Why stop at Rendon? May as well trade anyone not named Soto

Sorry to the Rendon stans, but something needs to change. Moving him was one of four options to get under the cap.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #134: September 06, 2018, 05:11:32 PM »
If you wanted to re-sign Harper, it made zero sense to trade him. One, it might piss him off, two, it gives some other team the chance to woo and recruit him for two months, which is the main advantage the Nats have. It is clear to me that the Lerners want to re-sign Harper, which is why, because no one gave up the keys to the kingdom, he wasn't traded.

It makes even less sense to trade Rendon if you think you will be competitive next year. 

The time to sign Harper is before he becomes a free agent and that clock is about to hit midnight.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 3051
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #135: September 06, 2018, 05:13:30 PM »
Sorry to the Rendon stans, but something needs to change. Moving him was one of four options to get under the cap.

 Put the bong down.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26788
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #136: September 06, 2018, 05:17:58 PM »
Rendon is more important to the team to re-sign than Harper.  I guess that makes me a fanboi, but it also makes me someone who looks at depth in the organization and financial impacts.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 16010
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #137: September 06, 2018, 05:24:58 PM »
Rendon is more important to the team to re-sign than Harper.  I guess that makes me a fanboi, but it also makes me someone who looks at depth in the organization and financial impacts.

Agreed.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 7844
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #138: September 06, 2018, 05:27:55 PM »
Rendon is more important to the team to re-sign than Harper.  I guess that makes me a fanboi, but it also makes me someone who looks at depth in the organization and financial impacts.

I actually don’t understand the term fanboi as it’s used here. People on this board think it’s wrong to like the actual players on the team. Or acknowledge that some of them are actually good and provide value.

Cue Spider and some reference to oral sex in 3...2...1...

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 2821
  • Juan Soto aka Human Wildcat
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #139: September 06, 2018, 09:45:39 PM »
The time to sign Harper is before he becomes a free agent and that clock is about to hit midnight.
I’m not sure about that.   There is an extremely wide range to what he’d get on the open market. My gut says that Lerner’s and boras have a handshake agreement to let boras shop him and let the Lerner’s match or make an offer.  The nats have no leverage to sign him between now and free agency.  They had leverage in the winter when Bryce could hedge against getting hurt or sucking this year but that’s done. 

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #140: September 06, 2018, 10:48:29 PM »
I’m not sure about that.   There is an extremely wide range to what he’d get on the open market. My gut says that Lerner’s and boras have a handshake agreement to let boras shop him and let the Lerner’s match or make an offer.  The nats have no leverage to sign him between now and free agency.  They had leverage in the winter when Bryce could hedge against getting hurt or sucking this year but that’s done. 

What are the terms of this handshake agreement? The Nats will be at most $65 million AAV under the cap and Harper wants $40 million AAV, assuming the Nats are willing to pay something close to that amount, how long do you wait? Tie up the bulk of the free agent budget and give him until after the winter meetings to decide?

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #141: September 11, 2018, 12:22:16 PM »

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26788
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #142: September 11, 2018, 12:44:13 PM »
Article on Talk Nats referencing 2019 CBT.

http://www.talknats.com/2018/09/11/well-see-im-plans-nats-future-bryce-harper/
It sounds like bad western dialogue only the Duke could pull off, but the Rendon / Harper situation seems to be one of those "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" cases.  There's no way that they can tie up $50 - 55MM in AAV between those two and still have room to operate.  This is a team that needs to spend money on pitching because the internally developed starters coming in from the minors aren't mid-rotation quality, and the mid-rotation pieces from 2014 - 2018 (Gio and Roark) are gone or soon to be expensive and gone. 

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #143: October 12, 2018, 11:30:09 AM »
Janes says that the Nats don't want to even come close to the cap next year. So instead of $55 million to spend if this is correct think $45 or less.

https://t.co/ZMdatle7v8?amp=1

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #144: October 25, 2018, 07:13:53 PM »
The Nats need a new cap tsar, after miscalculating their cap position in 2017 now they missed their Super Two projection date for Turner, costing an estimated $4.7 million against the cap. While that's great for Trea, he'll be making more than Eaton, but this will cost us a decent fifth starter or back-up catcher.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49866
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #145: October 25, 2018, 07:32:38 PM »
The Nats need a new cap tsar, after miscalculating their cap position in 2017 now they missed their Super Two projection date for Turner, costing an estimated $4.7 million against the cap. While that's great for Trea, he'll be making more than Eaton, but this will cost us a decent fifth starter or back-up catcher.

Super Two is different year to year. Not sure how the Nats were supposed to figure it out three seasons ago. Ultimately that's on Rizzo for calling Turner up and sitting him on the bench.

Online PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 13450
    • Twitter
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #146: October 25, 2018, 07:37:44 PM »
Super Two is different year to year. Not sure how the Nats were supposed to figure it out three seasons ago. Ultimately that's on Rizzo for calling Turner up and sitting him on the bench.

Not easy to predict but with nearly $5 million on the line, plus losing out on the chance to spend that money on another player is not a minor screw up.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49866
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #147: October 25, 2018, 07:52:52 PM »
Not easy to predict but with nearly $5 million on the line, plus losing out on the chance to spend that money on another player is not a minor screw up.

Yea, you're right. Three years ago they should have figured out who would rank in the top 22% of service time among players with between two and three years of service by now.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20118
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #148: October 25, 2018, 08:01:54 PM »
Yea, you're right. Three years ago they should have figured out who would rank in the top 22% of service time among players with between two and three years of service by now.

Or you know, not call him up to be a pinch runner

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 49866
Re: Competitive Balance Tax
« Reply #149: October 25, 2018, 08:12:32 PM »
Or you know, not call him up to be a pinch runner

Oh that is without dispute. But that's on Rizzo.