I am not sure where to put this (that's what he said) so I thought here would be fine. I will attempt to make this short. If have attached a copy of my payroll worksheet for your records. It is in PDF format. I tried, in vain, to upload my Excel version. I will send it via email to whomever would like a copy. In essence, I use the model of True Blue and modify in layman's terms. First, I worked very very hard on this. I know that some of you prefer your information short and sweet. I do not seem capable of creating threads that fall into those categories. I do my best to give information that is pertinent, timely, and thought out. Please appreciate that while I do not look for accolades, I do appreciate analysis. A few caveats: *I did not include incentive bonuses, however, I do include signing bonuses. I see it like this, if our guys (such as Perez and Wright) reach their incentive bonuses, we will not mind paying them because they are All Stars and getting saves or setups. *I have estimated many of the arbitration and pre-arbitration players. I try to use base line data for pre-arbitration and the 40/60/80 rule for arbitration players. If the numbers are consistently high, I add in bonus amounts beginning at $1million per. *Each player is a hyerlink to their Baseball Reference page. I like their analysis much more than other sites due to ease of use and clarity. *I have added all players from the 40 man. Some will not reach the majors this year. If this happens, adjusted service time and monies must be considered. *Beckett and Billingsley are due back in January and May respectively. However, if a setback occurs, it is possible that they will be placed back on the DL. If this happens, it is probable that insurance will cover part or most of their salaries for this year. Eg: Kenley Jansen is an above league average closer. The average price of a closer on today's market is approximately $10 million. At 40%, Jansen receives $4 million in his first year with a $1 million bonus. Therefore, in his first year of arbitration, I have allotted him $5 million. Please note: these numbers are based on league averages and could move up or down depending on the arbiter, team, or player. I have been going over numbers as of late and have come to some conclusions. According to my payroll worksheet, the Dodgers have the following committed the following for 2014, 2015, and 2016. $224,575,000 $132,600,000 $122,750,000 Here is where it gets strange. If we sign Kersh and Hanley to extensions, you can go ahead and chalk up another 45 - 50million for the next three years at least. Therefore, we only have about $17mil to play for next year if we are attempting to stay under the luxury tax. I have no idea if we are attempting to do this. I cannot get a real sense one way or another. There are two schools of thought. The first is that we spent in order to begin a slow regression toward a payroll that is more manageable while still have a great product on the field. The second is that we simply do not care about payroll as long as we are winning. I would imagine it is a combination thereof. We are not afraid of spending for the right piece if it means more wins but we are not going to be as fool hardy in the future. I think it is safe to say unless there is a trade of an outfielder coming, this year is a luxury tax wash. Having already paid once on the luxury tax, we will be second time offenders for not falling below the $189 million. For second time offenders the penalty is 30% of anything over the $189 million. If we surpass it next year, the "tax" raises to 40%. However, 10% of $20,000,000 is only $2,000,000. Our owners could see the raise as merely arbitrary at this point given the amount of money from merchandise certain players bring in. Next year is much more manageable. Yes, we will go over the limit. However, it will be by a smaller amount. 2016 is the year at which to concentrate. In this year alone, we lose the contracts of League, Beckett, Uribe, and the two relief pitchers we recently signed. This is quite a bit of savings. Our larger contracts to do not begin falling off until the next year. We lose both Crawford and Ethier in 2018 with Greinke and AGon the following year. Kemp drops off two years later. A conundrum for MLB is fast approaching. Look at the recent contracts given to premier players. Ethier's contract now looks like at least market value if not less. Given the lack of star players available in next year's FA pool, one has to believe this trend will only rise. Therefore, players will be paid much more than they are currently worth. Decent players will be paid like All Stars and great players will set records. This brings up two ideologies. First, it could suggest that we will be able to unload a larger contract in the next year due to a lack of other options for teams. Second, MLB will be forced to raise the luxury tax threshold to keep up with the market. If this happens, we could quite possibly fall on the upper end of the teams NOT paying a luxury tax post the current agreement. Finally, look at what the Dodgers have done. Yes, we have some huge contracts to players who are probably very overpaid. However, the trend to start using our minors and homegrown talent has already begun. We have started complimenting our larger salaried employees with players making near the minimum. As these players get service time and receive larger paychecks, we lose the larger contracts. As this happens, a regression to the mean becomes obvious. What does this say about where we are? I would argue that it says we can afford one more high priced player. One. I would also argue that we should probably concentrate on a front of the rotation starter. Kershaw may or may not be here but there is never enough pitching. Using Darvish as a baseline, Tanaka (based on the idea that he will receive more per year and the team less up for posting) should receive between 12 and 16 million per year for at least six years. We are already paying overage this year. Why not go ahead and spend the posting fee and see if we can acquire a number two for 16 million per year. That would be an outright steal. We would get younger and beat the market simultaneously. His salary would be more than made up for next year with the loss of a few contracts. Those are my thoughts. Enjoy the spreadsheet. I would like to hear what you guys think.
Nice work..Thanks for putting this together.. Seeing Andruw on that spreadsheet made me throw up in my mouth a little bit tho..
Another coherent well-thought out post. And kudos to you for making me think a minute, something I don't do enough of. This is what made me think the most: First, it could suggest that we will be able to unload a larger contract in the next year due to a lack of other options for teams. Second, MLB will be forced to raise the luxury tax threshold to keep up with the market. If this happens, we could quite possibly fall on the upper end of the teams NOT paying a luxury tax post the current agreement. I hadn't thought about some of our contracts looking more attractive to other teams in the next year or two, and I believe that to be true. Second, I wonder if instead of raising the tax threshold that maybe MLB begins to think about biting the bullet and going to a salary cap like the other sports. It could happen.
