Trade thread

[MarcoPolo]

FANTASTIC link, thks.

The A's and Royals are 1st, receiving $36M.
The Pirates are 3rd, with $35M
The Marlins are 4th, with $32M

(For comparison, the Orioles and Padres are tied for 9th-most, and receive $20M each in revenue sharing. The Braves are 17th and get $0M.)

Now, that's just revenue sharing. There' also the national TV money, of which every team gets an equal proportion. LAST season, that was about $25M to each team. THIS season, it doubled, to a little more that $50M.

Using last year's moneys (2013 revenue sharing, 2013 TV money), the only teams who received more from MLB (RS + TV) than they spent on salaries were the Astros and the Marlins.

I expect salaries to go up again this off-season, especially (again) for the "better than average, but not great players" like Pence {and Pablo} and mid-relievers). Each team will have another $25M to spend.

 

[calsnowskier]

I would be very surprised if any team except the absolute bottom-feeders (I mean that in both a metaphorical and a salary context) was pocketing enough money from revenue sharing to be able to add a star to their team (over $20M for a long contract).

The bottom-feeders are obviously the Marlins (Jeffrey Loria is absolute scum) and, now, the new owner of the Astros (who has drastically cut the salary budget since buying the team). I would NOT be surprised to learn that both teams are receiving more from revenue sharing than they are spending on players (which is against the rules, BTW).

Just to pick a nit...

Our convo was never about ADDING a new player to the mix, but about keeping an existing payer in the fold. Granted, signing a young kid to a "real" contract may have the same effect, but there are ways to do it that make sense, like signing them earlier for less annual $$ (the G's with Bum; the Rays with Longoria, etc). If a team waits for the player to file, they are conceding the loss.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just to pick a nit...

Our convo was never about ADDING a new player to the mix, but about keeping an existing payer in the fold. Granted, signing a young kid to a "real" contract may have the same effect, but there are ways to do it that make sense, like signing them earlier for less annual $$ (the G's with Bum; the Rays with Longoria, etc). If a team waits for the player to file, they are conceding the loss.

Valid point on the "keeping a player". I brought up in an earlier post the "unless player is willing to give a local discount" concept, which both Longoria and MadBum did. Or, to look at it another way, if the team goes after the player early enough (before 1st arb, as was the case with both MadBum and Longoria), then the player might consider the angle of "hey, this first contract is enough to guarantee me a really nice life even if I get hurt really bad next month". That's somewhat of a gamble to the team because the player may not turn out to be the star expected, or just gets hurt (see: Lowry, Noah).

And it's not always possible for a team to get much of a discount (if any) from a young player that they want to keep around, even if they sign them to a long-term contract before their first arb year (see: Posey, Buster).

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

MLB's Revenue-Sharing Formula - CBS News

This is what I was talking about. In 06 and 07 it was the Marlins that got more than $60 million from revenue sharing.

I have kind of stopped following this kind of stuff in recent years. Does anyone know if revenue sharing includes MLBs national tv rights under the new CBA? Or is that additional money that teams get?

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

Pittsburgh Pirates win by losing, financial documents show - ESPN

This shows the Pirates getting almost $70 million in total from MLB sources. It looks like this is what I was talking about. The point is, these teams get a ton of money.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

I would be very surprised if any team except the absolute bottom-feeders (I mean that in both a metaphorical and a salary context) was pocketing enough money from revenue sharing to be able to add a star to their team (over $20M for a long contract).

The bottom-feeders are obviously the Marlins (Jeffrey Loria is absolute scum) and, now, the new owner of the Astros (who has drastically cut the salary budget since buying the team). I would NOT be surprised to learn that both teams are receiving more from revenue sharing than they are spending on players (which is against the rules, BTW).

That is a little harsh to me. The team is rebuilding and is full of young guys making the league minimum. There are a lot of guys who will be arbitration eligible next year and we will see how things go. That will give us a better indication of the type of owner he is. I actually liked the offseason that they had. There isn't any silly contract that can hurt the team long term and they brought in a couple arms that they can possibly spin off for some young players. Brought in Fowler. Bringing up some of the kids now.

I haven't followed the Astros at all, but it is silly to me to spend money on vets to be a mediocre team instead of investing in the future. He should be taking that money and investing it in the draft and international scouting. If he hasn't been doing that then it looks a little worse.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

"Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com reports that the Mariners and Giants have had trade discussions with the White Sox regarding Dayan Viciedo."

Already looking for a new alternative to Morse?

Guess the two would go into a platoon possibly, Giants let Morse walk in FA and Viciedo takes over every day job.

 

[Stokes1931]

"Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com reports that the Mariners and Giants have had trade discussions with the White Sox regarding Dayan Viciedo."

Already looking for a new alternative to Morse?

Guess the two would go into a platoon possibly, Giants let Morse walk in FA and Viciedo takes over every day job.

Interesting. Dayan is a righty, just like Morse. Unless his splits are crazy, I can't see a platoon here.