Forum
Forum Navigation
$$$
#31 · November 5, 2020, 12:22 pm
I am in my Ebenezer Scrooge mode ... so not spending money is paramount. First I eliminate the need to hold (or improve) the quality of any position if that means spending and there is a serviceable alternative that is cheap.
Davies at $8-10MM and only one year control ... very good regular season piece. Is he that much more desirable than the wave of prospect options (at league minimum) who have a 6 year future? If not non-tendered, still should be able to clear his salary via trade for a prospect ... go with the kids for the now and future and save money. (Remember I am a big Davies supporter for the regular season).
Is there a cheaper alternative to Pham ($8MM/1 year) who still is serviceable even if not up to Pham’s projection? Is there the ability to parlay that $8MM into a base to sign a longer term asset for LF? Take the “savings” on both Davies and Pham ... even a better base for upgrading LF if that is the way they want to go.
Now if the Padres really want to roll the dice .... clean out the players with one year control via non-tender setting a really low base ... wait out the FA season and make the run at a major signing as the season approaches and, if not clicking, fall back to a leftover option (or just go with Ona).
#32 · November 5, 2020, 12:24 pm
Creative ways Padres may employ to save/create payroll $ in 2021: ... forgot the most obvious one!
5. Arbitration salaries come in lower. The lowest case Arb salary range across all players likely to be retained is 9.5MM. Likely that all players get handled the "same" (formula) way, so might be kind of "all or nothing" on whether some savings are achieved by teams here. Potential Savings: 0 - 10 MM
So the odd # ideas (#1, 3, & 5) of: ("Minor") Non-Tenders, Salary Deferrals, and Arb salaries coming in lower would actually Save payroll $ in 2021. HUGE Range of: 1 - 25 MM.
The even # ideas (#2 & 4) of: Bullpen trades, and a surprise major trade/s, plus ("Major") Non-Tenders like Pham or Davies could "Save" on paper anywhere from 0 - 30 MM $$... but these moves would be more $ shifting around to be re-allocated differently than "real" decreases in 2021 payroll.
Takeaway? Teams HAVE to see where the Arb salary ranges actually come in before venturing into FA. Too much uncertainty.
#33 · November 5, 2020, 12:40 pm
Put me into the "keep Pham" Camp.
I truly believe he is the perfect candidate to have his best season ever in his contract year.
His attitude....work ethic...and the fact he's never had a big payday makes him motivated even more than others at this same point due to his age and late start in the Majors thanks to the Cardinals.
To me he will be the perfect #2 or #3 hitter in this lineup.
It's not like he's making $15 mil.
I also like Davies but,"if" two of Gore/Patino/Weathers/Baez/Morejon pitch well enough in the Spring....I am all for trading him for a long term piece.Even if he has another fine season like he just did I'm not sure i would want to pay Davies what it would take to sign him long term....so getting a piece in return may be the way to go.
BUT....only if the rotation is covered of course.
I want to win it all in 2021!
#34 · November 5, 2020, 12:42 pm
The fundamental question for whether or not to Non-Tender a player is very simple:
Will another team claim/sign them at their Arb salary (and control)? If so, you don't Non-tender them, because they are tradeable.
Perdomo just having TJ Surgery last month is a certain non-tender. No team is going to pay > 1 MM for a 0% chance of contributing RP in his 2nd year of arb. (He was a 50/50 guy before the surgery). So IMO is Wingenter: Can't afford to spend even minimum salary = 5%+/- of your 10 MM budget on a guy who will be on IL all season. There is team control with minors options there, but he would be arb eligible next year. I think Greg Garcia is in this category. I just can't see a team willing to pay him 1.6 - 1.7 MM. In the terrible FA market might be able to sign him for half of that. Could even see him (back?) on a Minors deal.
Yes, Pham & Davies cost more, but they are legit GOOD unquestioned MLB players we just traded for, both in the 2+ WAR category @ 8 - 10 MM+ each. Would be stunned if NO team were willing to pay that for either guy relative to the projections for other SP & OF (including Profar). Non -tendering them & forcing backfill, even at SP where there are lots of internal & FA options seems not worth the risk.
#35 · January 10, 2021, 11:11 am
The potential Tatis contract is a great example of the major shortcomings of the way Fangraphs, Sportrac, etc report & show contract information: Tatis may actually receive as little as 2-3 MM in 2021, but this will show up on tables as close to "30 MM" for luxury tax purposes. Has no relevance to the amount of $ teams are spending annually, which isn't that hard to track...
#36 · January 10, 2021, 11:36 am
Quote from Brian Connelly on January 10, 2021, 11:11 amThe potential Tatis contract is a great example of the major shortcomings of the way Fangraphs, Sportrac, etc report & show contract information: Tatis may actually receive as little as 2-3 MM in 2021, but this will show up on tables as close to "30 MM" for luxury tax purposes. Has no relevance to the amount of $ teams are spending annually, which isn't that hard to track...
Fangraphs shows the AAV (as appropriate) for the tax calculation and how the league views the current payroll (which is current cash plus bonus allocation even if it is all paid up front). Shows both ways. Assuming Tatis receives zero bonus ... the payroll part will be the 2021 portion of the contract ($1-2MM?) and the AAV will be substituted for the tax calculation. Think Sportrac sorts out cash vs. bonus on the player’s page.
Do wish Fangraphs would show cash and allocated bonuses in separate blocks ... the tax calculation is already isolated.
If a Tatis deal is as being speculated that $30MM AAV will just confuse us all being higher than cash for the first 4 years and lower in the last 7 years ... if there is a tax after the new CBA.
#37 · January 10, 2021, 12:32 pm
... Here's where I have Padres currently: 150 MM in "known" 2021 Payr0ll so far... Details:
- I am guessing Kim's 4/28 MM will be staggered/backloaded as: 4/6/8/10 (2025 Mutual option = 11 MM?)
- Guessing 2021 Tatis gets 1 MM Signing Bonus (2021,rest over future years) + 1 MM Salary = 2 MM
- 100% of Kim's 5.525 MM posting fee is included (Pads may "budget" this over the life of contract)
- Also includes: Signing Bonuses to Pom & Clev of: 2 MM & 1.5 MM (both paid after end of 2021 season), 850K deferred salary to Ian Kinsler, 500K buyout to Moreland
- "High side" Arb salaries: Pham 8.1 Lamet 4.6 Pagan 1.9 Caratini 1.6 & Altavilla 900K
- This 150 MM only includes contract & arb Players & related/dead $. With Tatis = 17 players.
- So bare minimum of 9 pre-arb/minimum $ players (est 600K each, a little high)
- At moment, plus 3 more minimum $ to cover spots for O.D. on IL: Clevinger, Wingenter, Lawson
- .... so at least 12 x $600K = 7.2 MM... TRUE "Cash Flow" 2021 Payroll estimate: 157 MM+
Only possibles to be > 1 MM lower are: Kim's salary & Lamet's Arb. All but Altavilla (only "net" max 300K savings) are roster locks. Wingenter DFA would save 600K, since likely IL all year. Lawson will get optioned down when fully healthy saves a little. Only other way to save $ would be trade/s (Stammen!)
But Padres almost surely "not done" with likely/possible additions at: CF/OF, RP, & even SP.
Opening Day 2021 Payroll likely to be 10MM > 2020's 146 MM, and =/> 2020's end of season 155 MM
#38 · January 10, 2021, 1:08 pm
Quote from fenn68 on January 10, 2021, 11:36 amQuote from Brian Connelly on January 10, 2021, 11:11 amThe potential Tatis contract is a great example of the major shortcomings of the way Fangraphs, Sportrac, etc report & show contract information: Tatis may actually receive as little as 2-3 MM in 2021, but this will show up on tables as close to "30 MM" for luxury tax purposes. Has no relevance to the amount of $ teams are spending annually, which isn't that hard to track...
Fangraphs shows the AAV (as appropriate) for the tax calculation and how the league views the current payroll (which is current cash plus bonus allocation even if it is all paid up front). Shows both ways. Assuming Tatis receives zero bonus ... the payroll part will be the 2021 portion of the contract ($1-2MM?) and the AAV will be substituted for the tax calculation. Think Sportrac sorts out cash vs. bonus on the player’s page.
Do wish Fangraphs would show cash and allocated bonuses in separate blocks ... the tax calculation is already isolated.
If a Tatis deal is as being speculated that $30MM AAV will just confuse us all being higher than cash for the first 4 years and lower in the last 7 years ... if there is a tax after the new CBA.
- On 300 MM+ contract I'm pretty sure Tatis will be getting a very significant signing bonus; likely stretched out over years something along line of Myers deal. Using Manny's 20 MM as a benchmark.
- "I get it". My point is, when we're talking about Padres payroll & what they can spend, it's going to be wildly inaccurate when people refer to Sportrac, Fangraphs, etc. for the next 1o years, especially the early years of his deal.
- The easy "solution" would be for them to focus/highlight/bold "Actual" (cash flow) payroll for teams and minimize/italicize/"last column" salaries with prorated signing bonuses for tax purposes.... for whatever reason they tend to highlight/focus on the payroll tax aspect which is irrelevant annually to at least 25 of the 30 teams.
#39 · January 10, 2021, 8:11 pm
Locking up Tatis is HUGE in ways not even related to playing shortstop.
The Padres have never had a player as marketable as Tatis.
He will mean so much in so many ways that they can not let him become a Dodger or a Yankee.
#40 · January 11, 2021, 3:29 am
I agree. It's like the Kansas City Athletics have Roger Maris. Ooops. They did have him, but they traded him to the Yankees for a bucket of balls.