Hot Stove: 2019-2020 Offseason

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Spotrac has 27 players set to Active. Assume that no one on that list is traded for Bryant, but Taylor and Strickland are traded with the acquiring team(s) taking on their entire salaries. That leaves you with 26 players now on that list with the AAVs slightly over the tax. The 26-man would look like this:

SP - Scherzer, Strasburg, Corbin, Sanchez, Ross
RP - Doolittle, Hudson, Harris, Rainey, Suero, Elias, Voth
LF - Soto
CF - Robles
RF - Eaton
SS - Turner
3B - Bryant
2B - Castro
1B - Kendrick
C - Gomes

Bench - Zim, Thames, Asdrubal, Suzuki, Stevenson, Difo

Now, as far I see RosterResource(FG) tries to predict EOY tax salary by estimating players who aren't on guaranteed contracts and also estimating a certain amount of minor league players being called up and getting a prorated amount of league minimum.

Looking at that list, I forgot that, in addition to Elias, Difo is over minimum and there's Adrian Sanchez who is out of options.  Those are the easy cuts or guys to move.  Of course, another big potential saving might be trading Castro, but I don't think that can happen until June.  I suppose that, if the Nats are out of it by July, both Eaton and Anibal could be moved to create any room we need.  IF we are in it, then no realistic shot at resetting, I think.

[Mattionals]

Looking at that list, I forgot that, in addition to Elias, Difo is over minimum and there's Adrian Sanchez who is out of options.  Those are the easy cuts or guys to move.  Of course, another big potential saving might be trading Castro, but I don't think that can happen until June.  I suppose that, if the Nats are out of it by July, both Eaton and Anibal could be moved to create any room we need.  IF we are in it, then no realistic shot at resetting, I think.

 I agree with Slate that the Cubs will likely just hold onto Bryant unless they are blown away with an offer, and the two teams who realistically would make a deal (I don't see the Cards trading with the Cubs) are the Nats and Phillies probably won't get to a "blown away" type of deal.

I honestly think Castro will be worthwhile to have for the time being.

[Natsinpwc]

You have to count all players on the 40 man roster for luxury tax purposes. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I agree with Slate that the Cubs will likely just hold onto Bryant unless they are blown away with an offer, and the two teams who realistically would make a deal (I don't see the Cards trading with the Cubs) are the Nats and Phillies probably won't get to a "blown away" type of deal.

I honestly think Castro will be worthwhile to have for the time being.

I don't think Castro will be bad. I do think that, if the Nats are looking to trim payroll after a Bryant deal, having A-Cab and Howie, plus Sanchez, plus Garcia maybe a year away, makes the $6MM AAV a tempting target to trim. 

[Mattionals]

You have to count all players on the 40 man roster for luxury tax purposes.

Correct, but you only pay guaranteed contracts. The way I read it is that minor league deals are basically set in value. If the player is not on the Major aleague Squad, they don't get the Major league salary incentive.

For instance, say you sign Jeremy Hellickson to a non-guaranteed 2M dollar contract. The tax hit of 2M only happens if he makes the 26-man roster. If he goes to AAA, he gets paid AAA money.

For 40-man guys in the minors, their AAV is a pro-rated portion of the MLB league minimum depending upon how many days they are on the active roster. Therefore if a guy is on the 40-man but spends the entire season in the minors their oth no callup, his hit against the tax is just his minor league salary.

[Natsinpwc]

Correct, but you only pay guaranteed contracts. The way I read it is that minor league deals are basically set in value. If the player is not on the Major aleague Squad, they don't get the Major league salary incentive.

For instance, say you sign Jeremy Hellickson to a non-guaranteed 2M dollar contract. The tax hit of 2M only happens if he makes the 26-man roster. If he goes to AAA, he gets paid AAA money.

For 40-man guys in the minors, their AAV is a pro-rated portion of the MLB league minimum depending upon how many days they are on the active roster. Therefore if a guy is on the 40-man but spends the entire season in the minors their oth no callup, his hit against the tax is just his minor league salary.

But with injuries most teams are going to have 30 or more players or so on the MLB roster for some portion of the season and they will get allocated the MLB salary for that time.  Also you want to leave room at the trade deadline to add salary. 

[Elvir Ovcina]

Correct, but you only pay guaranteed contracts. The way I read it is that minor league deals are basically set in value. If the player is not on the Major aleague Squad, they don't get the Major league salary incentive.

For instance, say you sign Jeremy Hellickson to a non-guaranteed 2M dollar contract. The tax hit of 2M only happens if he makes the 26-man roster. If he goes to AAA, he gets paid AAA money.

For 40-man guys in the minors, their AAV is a pro-rated portion of the MLB league minimum depending upon how many days they are on the active roster. Therefore if a guy is on the 40-man but spends the entire season in the minors their oth no callup, his hit against the tax is just his minor league salary.

That's usually, but not always the case.  Most guys who have hit arbitration eligibility won't sign split contracts so optioning them or otherwise getting them to the minors doesn't save money (although outrighting them off the 40-man would save them the tax calculation - a la Rusney Castillo).  Also, there's a floor for guys who had time in MLB the previous year: they can't be paid less that 50% of their total salary for the prior year.  Those likely wouldn't come into play this year, but theoretically could with guys like Fedde or even Thames (who has an option).

[Mattionals]

That's usually, but not always the case.  Most guys who have hit arbitration eligibility won't sign split contracts so optioning them or otherwise getting them to the minors doesn't save money (although outrighting them off the 40-man would save them the tax calculation - a la Rusney Castillo).  Also, there's a floor for guys who had time in MLB the previous year: they can't be paid less that 50% of their total salary for the prior year.  Those likely wouldn't come into play this year, but theoretically could with guys like Fedde or even Thames (who has an option).

I was unaware of the option years remaining clause and the 50% of prior years earnings. Thanks!

But with injuries most teams are going to have 30 or more players or so on the MLB roster for some portion of the season and they will get allocated the MLB salary for that time.  Also you want to leave room at the trade deadline to add salary. 

Yes, there will be more than likely 26 player salaries this season. What I'm saying is that you said ownership doesn't want to go over the tax threshold. I stated that it isn't likely they would care if they were able to trade for Bryant. The reward of getting Bryant would outweigh the risk of going over the tax threshold. Also, even with additional players on the roster and maybe a trade at the deadline, the tax overage will still be minimal.

This is what ownership and the FO will weigh. Bryant is one of a few players that the FO thinks going over the tax would make sense. Also, if the team trades for Bryant, the only players that they could and would afford via prospects would likely be a player on an expiring contract with probably a small amount of salary to overcome.

[Elvir Ovcina]

I was unaware of the option years remaining clause and the 50% of prior years earnings. Thanks!

Like I said, they rarely matter.  Castillo is basically the only time I can recall it mattering - if they'd been able to reduce his salary by optioning him, they would have kept him on the 40-man rather than outrighting him (and there's a good chance he'd have been on a major league roster somewhere).

[hotshot]

I agree with Slate that the Cubs will likely just hold onto Bryant unless they are blown away with an offer, and the two teams who realistically would make a deal (I don't see the Cards trading with the Cubs) are the Nats and Phillies probably won't get to a "blown away" type of deal.

I honestly think Castro will be worthwhile to have for the time being.

I think Castro will provide very good numbers in the Nats offense. Way more than just "worthwhile." He's a professional hitter like Kendrick and Cabrera who hits regardless of who the opponents' pitcher is.

[Slateman]

I agree with Slate that the Cubs will likely just hold onto Bryant unless they are blown away with an offer, and the two teams who realistically would make a deal (I don't see the Cards trading with the Cubs) are the Nats and Phillies probably won't get to a "blown away" type of deal.

I honestly think Castro will be worthwhile to have for the time being.

I think the Braves are going to be interested at the deadline. Particularly if Riley struggles defensively.

[Truconfidence]

I think Castro will provide very good numbers in the Nats offense. Way more than just "worthwhile." He's a professional hitter like Kendrick and Cabrera who hits regardless of who the opponents' pitcher is.

He found something that let him tap into more power in the 2nd half. If he can replicate that he might hit 25 HRs.

[Mattionals]

I think the Braves are going to be interested at the deadline. Particularly if Riley struggles defensively.

Agreed. The best time for the Nats to trade is now, but this is also the worst time for the Cubs to deal Bryant unless they really are serious about the payroll thing. That being said, I can't just see them dumping Bryant for a possible return from the Nats or Phillies, although if Kieboom centers that deal, the Cubs really should listen. I don't really know if anyone else would really give up someone as valuable as Kieboom (and who knows, maybe he is even off the table in any trade talks with the Nats) for Bryant.

[bluestreak]

I think the Braves are going to be interested at the deadline. Particularly if Riley struggles defensively.

Yes. At some point they are going to need to turn this prospect depth into ML talent. If they hoard it too long prospects lose value by either not performing or ageing out.

[Slateman]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-09/new-york-mets-are-for-sale-again-the-price-may-have-just-soared

Get the Lerners to buy the Mets.

Make them trade us deGrom and Alonso to us for Joe Ross and Drew Mendoza

[Slateman]

The Joc Pederson trade fell through.

I know we have a first base platoon with Eric Thames, but Pederson at first base would be a significant upgrade against RHP. And it would basically eliminate the need for a 4th OFer, as Pederson can play all three OF positions in a pinch and would be an excellent replacement in RF if Eaton gets hurt.

[RyanZimsKazoo]

The Joc Pederson trade fell through.

I know we have a first base platoon with Eric Thames, but Pederson at first base would be a significant upgrade against RHP. And it would basically eliminate the need for a 4th OFer, as Pederson can play all three OF positions in a pinch and would be an excellent replacement in RF if Eaton gets hurt.

Do we have anything the dodgers would want is the question

[rileyn]

The Joc Pederson trade fell through.

I know we have a first base platoon with Eric Thames, but Pederson at first base would be a significant upgrade against RHP. And it would basically eliminate the need for a 4th OFer, as Pederson can play all three OF positions in a pinch and would be an excellent replacement in RF if Eaton gets hurt.

O% chance Stan Kasten and the Dodgers deal Joc Pederson to the Nats.

[Five Banners]

O% chance Stan Kasten and the Dodgers deal Joc Pederson to the Nats.

So glad the days of KaLernerStan are in the past

[Slateman]

Do we have anything the dodgers would want is the question

They were willing to part with him and Stripling for a middle infield prospect that may or may not have been in their top 10. They're looking to dump cash and currently have 42 players on their 40 man roster. I dont think it would take a lot to trade for him.

It ain't much, but Pederson is 80+ points better in OPS vs RHP than Thames. Since we dont have offense outside of Turner and Soto, every little bit extra would help. Of course, I don't know what you'd do with Thames . . .

[Elvir Ovcina]

The Joc Pederson trade fell through.

I know we have a first base platoon with Eric Thames, but Pederson at first base would be a significant upgrade against RHP. And it would basically eliminate the need for a 4th OFer, as Pederson can play all three OF positions in a pinch and would be an excellent replacement in RF if Eaton gets hurt.

Pederson can't play first.  The Dodgers tried and he couldn't handle it defensively. 

[Natsinpwc]

Pederson can't play first.  The Dodgers tried and he couldn't handle it defensively.

Irrelevant. They just signed Thames.

[Slateman]

Pederson can't play first.  The Dodgers tried and he couldn't handle it defensively. 

They tried in the middle of the season and he got zero prep. I'd imagine with some spring training, he'd be okay

Irrelevant. They just signed Thames.

So release him. Pederson is significantly better.

[imref]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2020-zips-projections-washington-nationals/

[Elvir Ovcina]

They tried in the middle of the season and he got zero prep. I'd imagine with some spring training, he'd be okay

He'd apparently been doing side work for quite a while, but yeah.  But why not just teach Soto then? Pederson's a better OF, and it would save wear and tear on Soto to not play OF some days - unless the concern is messing with your best hitter's groove, which might not show up on the stat sheet but matters for some guys.