NEWS/RUMORS/AROUND MLB Thread (Oct 2016 - Feb 2017)

Sure, there are many ways to go...but for most of the year, the bp was the best there was...and Jansen at the end of it was a major reason why. So, if we had the best, why not go for it again?
At least it's tried and true, not all " projected/ maybe"/ cheaper bs.
And believe me, half the guys that are OK with Jansen leaving is simply because they don't want him to make that kind of money...like they're paying it.
There is no other valid reason other than that, imo, stupid shit.

 

Well, lets be serious, it is ludicrous that a closer is getting paid 16M +. Hell it is ludicrous for most of major sports figures to get the cash they do, but anyone that has taken any economics class knows that the market will dictate the price. If someone is willing to pay that much then that is the price. So now MGT needs to decide if they are going to pay the market price or if they are going to find cheaper options. I kinda get the feeling from the Gurnick MLB article that MGT is keeping an eye on that 235MM number and trying to decide if the penalty for going over it is worth the players that would push it over. The new CBA has some pretty stiff penalties, which if neglected could compromise our FA spending in the future.

 

What's stupid is dumping all your resources on one or two players and continuing down the path of loosing in the playoffs.

With luxury tax being what it is, it doesn't make sense to get into a 50% tax on millions of dollars..

You can blindly say " fuck it it's not my money "..

It's your team.. don't you want them to do the best by the the organization so that they can put together a team that can actually win and compete for a ship each and every year?

Closers are made into closers by failing at starting or in Kenley's rare case as a catcher.

They can find pieces to make another one.

 

Those people saying "why do you care, it's not your money" are missing the point. The Guggs, Friedman, Zaidi have said they are going to approach this rationally. It's the ownership group that has not only hinted, but have proven in action, that they are not going to give that kind of money away.

So yes, it's not our money, but it's the investor money saying we are not going to go down that path while we have a crop of talented minor league players that may make a difference.

But I have no illusions about what our 9th innings are going to look like without a proven closer.

 

This is some bullshit. 35 million combined for 4-5 years for Turner and Jansen is not that much and not crippling for a team with a billion dollar TV contract. If they don't sign both of these guys and get a good 2B they fucked up. I understand the being cute aspect of finding under the radar guys but this is obvious no brainer shit. We shouldn't be outspent by the 75 win Marlins.

 

I will say that I'd rather the team spend dollars than prospects..Even if it means getting hit on tax.

Especially after seeing what it would take.

Getting a closer, 3B, 2B and OF would gut the farm.

 

Its not that we are getting out spent by the Marlins, we are getting slapped with a penalty by the CBA. That is what might prevent us from signing Jensen and Turner. There has to be some fiduciary responsibility by MGT so that we can continue to spend in later years. Remember Otani is coming.....

 

Our salary for 2017 right now is 187 million. If you figure we can dump Kazmir (17 million) by covering 7 then we're down to 180. Jansen gets 17 per Turner 18 per. That's 215 million. Then once you factor in arb you're still below the 235, and even if you get slightly above it, so fucking what you make 250 million a year on TV alone!

Next year Ethier and CC come off the books that's 40 million on guys we won't even have to replace. The year after that A-Gon, Kazmir and McCarthy. They can't cry poor it doesn't add up.

 

It's not as simple as that we could lose out to the Marlins it's about the salary currently on the roster, the ones being paid to play elsewhere and the salaries in the minors like Guerrero. IF both JT and Kenley aren't re-signed our payroll will be at 188. With them it will be, using your 35 figure 223 which is way over the upcoming threshold. It's my opinion that we need JT more so for me he has to be the priority. It's also about saving some money for the HUGE free agents coming in 2018.

Well damn maybe my rule 5 reason for the signing delays may be wrong! Come on JT!!!

EDIT: Spanky beat me to it

 

Well first off, there is a limit to MGT's cash.....it may be really high, but there is a limit. However the main point, its not just cash that they will be having to give up if they go over the 235MM amount. It is draft picks and possibly International spending money. I don't know the new CBA very well, but I know there is loss of draft picks and there might be a International spending limit imposed.

 

LOL......I feel like a ninja now!!!!

 

I know what the new CBA is, I read it, and I briefly touched on that in my second post. If we go over 235 million this year we pay a heavy tax and are at risk of dropping 10 spots in the draft. All of that is easily worth one of Jansen or Turner, figuring that signing just one keeps us below the 235. Then, in 2018, Ethier, CC and Guerrero's contracts are up, with A-Gon, BMac and Kazmir the following year. This is really the only year we'd be at risk to incur such penalties.

If you think that like, 10-15 million extra dollars of Guggenheim's billions and 10 spots in the draft are worth this team losing Kenley Jansen, we have vastly different opinions on the state of the Dodgers.

 

Wait, I thought the way it worked was that the threshold was $195 for 2017, $197 for 2018, and $206 in 2019. It's 20% tax for 1st offenders, 30% for 2nd and 50% for third time offenders.

At your presumed $213M already in 2017, we're already over the 2017 and 2018 and 2019 thresholds, assuming we add no additional salary. We're already on pace for a 50% tax.

Then there are surtaxes on the amounts over the threahold. Between $20 to $40M over, the surtax is 12% of the amount over the threshold.

I also heard that LA may be considered a 4 time offender because of their 2016 salaries, although I can't verify that.

So yes....not my money, not your money....it's their money, and they don't want to go there TV contract or not (and the contract may be ratings dependent.....and no contract lasts forever....not sure everyone knows exactly what it says).

 

Ok for argument sake, lets say MGT signs Turner, and lets Jensen walk, with the assumption that if we also sign Jensen we go over the 235 cap, get taxed HEAVILY and lose 10 draft spots. Lets also shit can the notion that we are going to get ANY ONE to take McCarthy or Kazmir off our hands.....so we are stuck with their salaries. That being said, in this scenario 16+MM is saved, we keep our current draft position, and gain a supplemental pick. If you could resign Blanton, trade for Colome, and elevate Dayton, that bullie is just as strong as it was last year if not stronger because you have at least 2 guys in Blanton and Colome who could close and possibly Dayton. Again, last years bullie was nothing short of AMAZING, and I am a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it guy", but one has to stop and really think about the pros and cons of letting Jensen walk.

 

I see where we bring up the TV contract being as huge as it is but correct me if I am wrong doesn't the money coming to the team get smaller as the years go on?

 

I think the response you are going to get to this is "yeah you might be right, but it is still a crap ton of money"

 

Probably lol.

 

I'm sorry what? A bullpen that replaces Kenley with Alex Colome gets better? We had Blanton and Dayton last year.

 

It's too bad MLB teams don't disclose in detail where money is spent in terms of overall expenses for running the entire operations. I think most of the information is of a summary type with no audited financials.

I'm curious to known what the total cost of running the Dodgers is....from player, executive, other personnel salaries, facilities maintenance, marketing, travel expenses, uniforms, insurance, minor league operations and associated costs etc....and then how much of these expenses are offset by ticket fees, concessions, TV contracts, licensing rights, etc.

I'm wondering if the TV money represents a big chunk of the revenues supporting non-player salary overhead. If it is, then you can see why the FO may not want to keep getting hit with expenses on the salary side.