2015 Rosterbation

[Mays-Fan]

Pretty interesting study on MLBTR about each team's future payroll obligations. Lotta stuff I haven't yet digested.

Future Payroll Obligations By Team ? MLB Trade Rumors

 

[Mays-Fan]

 

[Mays-Fan]

So, how have things changed since we last checked in about a year ago? Obviously there have been some significant commitments added and subtracted, and existing contracts are one year closer to completion.

The following table shows how each team’s future balance sheet has changed on a year-by-year basis since last year (re-ordered highest to lowest):

 

[Mays-Fan]

And finally, this table documents how each team’s total forward-looking commitments have changed from our last snapshot in November of 2013 (looking at 2015 and beyond) to the one taken this morning (looking at 2016 and beyond). In other words, the number you see in the column at the right shows you how much more or less in total future obligations a particular team is carrying now than they were at this time last year.

 

[Mays-Fan]

And finally, this table documents how each team’s total forward-looking commitments have changed from our last snapshot in November of 2013 (looking at 2015 and beyond) to the one taken this morning (looking at 2016 and beyond). In other words, the number you see in the column at the right shows you how much more or less in total future obligations a particular team is carrying now than they were at this time last year.

This chart shows that, at least vis-a-vis the other orgs, esp the big boys, the Giants have really slashed their future obligations. Other teams are either financially suicidal or are confident in their ability to generate future revenues - I expect the answer lies somewhere in between, with a bias toward the confident side.

There are only a handful of teams, I imagine, who have a greater ability than SF to generate revenues. I would expect the FO will start making some splashes - no surprise there. But to what extent is the key. This study and these charts certainly shed some light into that process.

 

[Montalban]

Also did anyone else hear about Scott Boras saying Barry Zito wants to come back and pitch next year?

He is younger than Vogelsong and Hudson...

Yep, he's making a comeback.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just thinking this through...if they were at 200 in 2015, that about 202 with the tax.

2016, Timmy/Huddy/Scoots/JA come off for a savings of 43MM. But, Casilla/Belt/Blanco/Petit/Crawford/Kontos all due raises too. Tough to see us getting under 189 again, and then the tax would be 30%. However, the cap likely goes up in 2017. Tough call.

Bottom line, I can't see ownership expanding payroll by $50MM over opening day this year.

Re: raises. And Buster ($11M this year, $20M in '16). And MadBum ($4M this year, $10M in '16). Casilla won't be getting a LOT more. Hopefully some of the young arms in the minors will be ready for 2016 to help fill out the pen and taking one of the starting spots.

I also can't see the salary going up by $50M. BUT, having just added $20M+ in revenue by winning the WS (in 7 games, no less - max revenue) I wouldn't be surprised if they upped the salary by $25M, or even a little more and risk running a miniscule loss just for 2015 (knowing that a LOT of salary will be off the books for 2016) - IF that sets them up for great runs in 2015-2018/9. So I don't think Hamels AND Panda is out of the question. And *I'm* the guy that is always the pessimist when it comes to the team opening its wallet and spending on salary.

We still need a friggin' OFer.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This chart shows that, at least vis-a-vis the other orgs, esp the big boys, the Giants have really slashed their future obligations. Other teams are either financially suicidal or are confident in their ability to generate future revenues - I expect the answer lies somewhere in between, with a bias toward the confident side.

There are only a handful of teams, I imagine, who have a greater ability than SF to generate revenues. I would expect the FO will start making some splashes - no surprise there. But to what extent is the key. This study and these charts certainly shed some light into that process.

Basically, what that table shows is that the Giants haven't added any long-term contracts since Nov 2013, and one year of big-to-huge salaries has come and gone. Since the outlook is now 2016 (and not NEXT season) Huddy, Timmy, Scutaro, Affeldt, Casilla coming off the books after 2015 makes it look pretty darn good. So the team *does* have the flexibility to add some major long-term contracts, if it puts them in a good place championship-wise. Especially if they think they can replace Timmy and Huddy in-house. In fact, 4 of those 5 of those contracts *might* be replaced in-house for 2016. Panik is already there and I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that 2 bullpen arms and a #4 or #5 starting pitcher could graduate from our farm system over the next 16 months.

But we still need a friggin' LF!

 

[calsnowskier]

Just thinking this through...if they were at 200 in 2015, that about 202 with the tax.

2016, Timmy/Huddy/Scoots/JA come off for a savings of 43MM. But, Casilla/Belt/Blanco/Petit/Crawford/Kontos all due raises too. Tough to see us getting under 189 again, and then the tax would be 30%. However, the cap likely goes up in 2017. Tough call.

Bottom line, I can't see ownership expanding payroll by $50MM over opening day this year.

But, I am often in the business of being wrong.

And business has been GOOD.

 

[tzill]

Re: raises. And Buster ($11M this year, $20M in '16). And MadBum ($4M this year, $10M in '16). Casilla won't be getting a LOT more. Hopefully some of the young arms in the minors will be ready for 2016 to help fill out the pen and taking one of the starting spots.

I also can't see the salary going up by $50M. BUT, having just added $20M+ in revenue by winning the WS (in 7 games, no less - max revenue) I wouldn't be surprised if they upped the salary by $25M, or even a little more and risk running a miniscule loss just for 2015 (knowing that a LOT of salary will be off the books for 2016) - IF that sets them up for great runs in 2015-2018/9. So I don't think Hamels AND Panda is out of the question. And *I'm* the guy that is always the pessimist when it comes to the team opening its wallet and spending on salary.

We still need a friggin' OFer.

Agreed; the relief is pretty good in 16, so they may expand payroll by $20M.

I have this 25 man:

SP
Bum 7
Cain 21
Huddy 12
Freak 18
(Hamels) 23.5
SUBTOTAL 81.5
RP
KCya 5
JA 6
JLo 4
Machi 0.5
Strick 0.5
Biggie (1.6)
Kontos 0.5
SUBTOTAL 18.1
C
Buster 17
Susser 0.5
SUBTOTAL 17.5
IF
BB9 (3.4)
Panik 0.5
Craw (2.5)
(Panda) 18
Kobe 1.5
Scoots 7
SUBTOTAL 32.9
OF
Herk 19
Oxy 10
Shark (3.5)
Carbonell 0.5
?
SUBTOTAL 33 ** one open spot

TOTAL PROJECTED PAYROLL 183MM with one open spot.

Plus, I think you'd need to count Hacktor (1) to bring us to 184, or a $34MM increase from last year.

doubtful.

 

[tzill]

And business has been GOOD.

You will pay for that.

SUSAC!!

 

[Mays-Fan]

Agreed; the relief is pretty good in 16, so they may expand payroll by $20M.

I have this 25 man:

SP
Bum 7
Cain 21
Huddy 12
Freak 18
(Hamels) 23.5
SUBTOTAL 81.5
RP
KCya 5
JA 6
JLo 4
Machi 0.5
Strick 0.5
Biggie (1.6)
Kontos 0.5
SUBTOTAL 18.1
C
Buster 17
Susser 0.5
SUBTOTAL 17.5
IF
BB9 (3.4)
Panik 0.5
Craw (2.5)
(Panda) 18
Kobe 1.5
Scoots 7
SUBTOTAL 32.9
OF
Herk 19
Oxy 10
Shark (3.5)
Carbonell 0.5
?
SUBTOTAL 33 ** one open spot

TOTAL PROJECTED PAYROLL 183MM with one open spot.

Plus, I think you'd need to count Hacktor (1) to bring us to 184, or a $34MM increase from last year.

doubtful.

Yeah, I admire the effort, and I'd love to have Hamels, but that leaves us gruesomely weak in the OF. I think that imbalance is unwise.

Unless the FO wants to lay out another 12 to 15 mill on top to land Cabrera or Markakis, or at least Rasmus.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don't see Carbonell on the team in 2015. He didn't do well in the minors, and he sucked in the AFL.

Also, I would trade Hector to the Phils (they will need a new backup catcher), and maybe another guy or two for salary relief in the Hamels trade.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Cole Hamels has requested a trade from the Phil's to a contender. He still has 4/94 with a 19M option remaining.

He is a stud, no doubt. But he is paid like an Ace+. Would we take him and his contract if the Phil's were to just had it over? How much would they need to cover in order for us to send over a couple prospects (Crick and Osich, for example)?

Oh, BTW. I didn't point this out but maybe I should have. Hamels has *requested* a trade. Under the CBA rules in place since late 2006, the team is not required to do anything. (Before, they were required, in certain cases, to take certain actions.) Now, they team can do whatever it wants - there is no obligation to try and trade him.

 

[calsnowskier]

Oh, BTW. I didn't point this out but maybe I should have. Hamels has *requested* a trade. Under the CBA rules in place since late 2006, the team is not required to do anything. (Before, they were required, in certain cases, to take certain actions.) Now, they team can do whatever it wants - there is no obligation to try and trade him.

I was unaware that a team ever had to act on one of these (legally). However, if a guy doesn't want to be there, it is probably not a good idea to have him grousing in the clubhouse.

Also, I have not heard any rumors about him going anywhere (Giants nor another team).

 

[Epic Voidfield]

I was unaware that a team ever had to act on one of these (legally). However, if a guy doesn't want to be there, it is probably not a good idea to have him grousing in the clubhouse.

Also, I have not heard any rumors about him going anywhere (Giants nor another team).

On top of that, has anyone seen his no trade clause? I know there was one leaked last year I think, but I think that gets renewed each season?

 

[MarcoPolo]

On top of that, has anyone seen his no trade clause? I know there was one leaked last year I think, but I think that gets renewed each season?

I haven't seen it, but then I haven't seen any part of his contract - I just don't have the access.

On the other hand, Cot's is your friend for all things contract related. Cot's (as of today) says :

limited no-trade protection (may block trades to 20 clubs each season) (for 2014 season, may block deals to all clubs except Atlanta, Boston, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, San Diego, St. Louis, Texas and Washington) (no-trade list for 2015 season includes Boston but not Chicago Cubs)

And, of course, no matter what is in the contract, a player may always choose to waive trade restrictions and accept a trade.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I was unaware that a team ever had to act on one of these (legally). However, if a guy doesn't want to be there, it is probably not a good idea to have him grousing in the clubhouse.

Also, I have not heard any rumors about him going anywhere (Giants nor another team).

I said "Before, they were required, in certain cases, to take certain actions."

IIRC (it's been years and years, so this could be wrong), the specific case was that if a player with at least 5 years of service time was traded, and he was under contract for more than one year at the time of the trade, then he could *request and require* that his new team trade him after he played one season for them. If the team didn't trade him (?before ST?) then he could elect to become a Free Agent. But that no longer applies.

 

[calsnowskier]

I haven't seen it, but then I haven't seen any part of his contract - I just don't have the access.

On the other hand, Cot's is your friend for all things contract related. Cot's (as of today) says :

limited no-trade protection (may block trades to 20 clubs each season) (for 2014 season, may block deals to all clubs except Atlanta, Boston, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, San Diego, St. Louis, Texas and Washington) (no-trade list for 2015 season includes Boston but not Chicago Cubs)

And, of course, no matter what is in the contract, a player may always choose to waive trade restrictions and accept a trade.

If a player is demanding a trade, I think no-trade clauses pretty much get thrown out the window. Not legally, but logically.

"I have a no-trade contract, so you cant trade me, but I DEMAND to be traded!!"

 

[calsnowskier]

Apparently, Yoan Moncado was officially declared a FA over the weekend. This is the 19 year old middle infielder who we were talking about a few weeks back.

Prob is that he was declared an amateur FA, not a professional FA. That means that anything he signs for will be applied to the teams international FA pool, and anything a team spends past their limit is taxed at 100% and they are assigned punishment to future international signing pools.

If this kid were in the draft, he would be a no-brainer #1 overall pick, so he is a prize that many teams will be willing to dump their entire pool into, and possibly even go further than that. How much further is the question.